[Zardoz]

(Posted on the front page)

So persuasive, so reasoned, so thoughtful. Unfortunately, it's just another pile of cornucopian denialist crap:

HAS OIL PEAKED? - NOT YET: We have at least 30 more years to find alternatives to petroleum

...we have at least three more decades to find alternatives to petroleum.

"Trusting markets is the only way we can assure energy abundance in the future," notes the University of Houston's Mr. Economides. "It's also the only way that we will ever transition to something other than oil and gas.


Stuff like this does a lot of damage. It provides plenty of ammo for the hard-core denial crowd.

[delonewolf]

so the high prices are because of these "energy militants" like russia, venezuela and Iran.

if the world was run by big oil there wouldn't be a problem...

i'm sceptic, but i guess we won't know the sh!t hit the fan untill we can all smell it.

[dub_scratch]

Here we see the typical Libertarian/Repubican/Cornucopian denial strategy:

1) Try to paint the oil supply skeptics as extremist apocalyptarinas by taking some statement out of context (i.e. "war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens."). Paint the depletionist as "prophets of oily doom", and the audience will automatically turn against them and their message.

2) Remind the public of oil depletion predictions in the past to erroneously imply that oil is an infinite resource.

3) Trot out experts who predict energy abundance, which there is no shortage in itself. Most of them simply refer to each-other's forecast which ultimately reside with the USGS 2000 report. Then the cornucopian can ignore the controversy behind their wildly optimistic assumptions and leave it as if the word of the USGS is the word of God. The cornucopian can conveniently ignore the USGS contradiction of a assumed US URR of 240 GBs and the fact it peaked in 1970 at 90 Gbs (which would mean oil peak is earlier than the Hubbert 1/2 URR peak).

4) Blame oil producing & exporting nations for any supply shortages or price rises. Ignore the possibility that if oil were as abundant as they claim, the "energy militants" would have no power to make trouble. This way the hypocritical Libertarians can make the case that big government should get involved, perhaps militarily in order to spread democracy to those oil fields. But in terms of getting big government to curb energy wastefulness from the US public, well we can't have that. The massive corporations and vested interest who sign Bailey's check certainly cannot tolerate rational government policy.

5) Make the claim that markets will solve the oil depletion problem with either new supplies or efficiency gains-- and NOT curtailment. The cornucopian can falsely make this argument by taking short-little snippets of history that "prove" the pseudo-free market works this way. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s the oil crisis of the 1970s demonstrated, while the demand for oil is inelastic in the short run, consumers do eventually adjust to higher prices. U.S. oil consumption declined by 13 percent between 1973 and 1983

[Concerned]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '(')Posted on the front page)
"Trusting markets is the only way we can assure energy abundance in the future," notes the University of Houston's Mr. Economides. "It's also the only way that we will ever transition to something other than oil and gas.[/i]

[mekrob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he higher prices of the 1970s led to an oil glut and prices below $10 a barrel by 1986. Should one or more "energy militants" choose to deploy the "oil weapon" again, they will cause considerable economic pain to developed countries. But detonating the oil weapon would end up disarming the energy militants for a generation, after consumer cutbacks produce a new glut.

[ironborne]

I had no idea that I was an oily-doomer . It seems that this article does more to justify going to war than it does to refute PO.

[XOVERX]

The thing is, the guy gives no reason for thinking his oil experts ought to be believed over the same kind of oil experts who think PO may be here.

I mean, this Economides guy says he can toodle over to Saudi and single-handedly double the Saudi daily oil production all by himself. No problemo, Economides. Talk about crazy talk.

And yet, the conservatives -- the guys who warn that PO might be here right now -- are somehow to be ignored? Economides can double Saudi oil production, yet the author claims the conservatives are the ones way far out in right field? Huh? Come again?

What the entire article boils down to, as I read it, is "reserve growth." According to the author, PO experts are absolutely correct, except that their analysis contains one flaw: Unbeknownst to PO-ers, the world is going to squeeze another generation's worth of oil out of existing wells due to technological advances in recovery techniques. Reserve growth is going to get the world another 20 years before oil peaks.

So there you go, folks, the answer to our short-term prayers is "reserve growth." Wow, do I feel a lot better now.

Not surprisingly, the author writes for the right-wing Cato Institute. And the article is out of the right-wing Dallas Morning News. Still, there are a helluva lot of right-wing folks in Dallas that are going to read this article, and think, "reserve growth?" There's a whole lot of folks in Dallas, right-wing or not, that are not stupid. A lot of people in Dallas know oil.

The good thing is that even the right-wing think tanks and newspapers find it necessary to calm down their right wing constituents. Very interesting.

[vision-master]

Ship of fools..........

[dub_scratch]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('XOVERX', '
')
And yet, the conservatives -- the guys who warn that PO might be here right now -- are somehow to be ignored? Economides can double Saudi oil production, yet the author claims the conservatives are the ones way far out in right field? Huh? Come again?

[Lighthouse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '.')..

Stuff like this does a lot of damage. It provides plenty of ammo for the hard-core denial crowd.

[JPL]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '.')..

Stuff like this does a lot of damage. It provides plenty of ammo for the hard-core denial crowd.

[sameu]

is this supposed to be an optimistic article?

let's say they are right

30 years is nothing

30 years is very little time to make such a transition and in that case they better start working on those alternatives right now

[pedalling_faster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', 'H')AS OIL PEAKED? - NOT YET: We have at least 30 more years to find alternatives to petroleum

Stuff like this does a lot of damage. It provides plenty of ammo for the hard-core denial crowd.

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'i')s this supposed to be an optimistic article?

let's say they are right

30 years is nothing

30 years is very little time to make such a transition and in that case they better start working on those alternatives right now

[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dub_scratch', 'H')ere we see the typical Libertarian/Repubican/Cornucopian denial strategy

[WebHubbleTelescope]

The spud-boy is a LIBertarian, not a SCIentist:.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')IB: Isn't this wonderful? I have a desire to drive, and sufficient surplus income to purchase a vehicle, and the market and technology provide me with one. Praise Jesus! Praise Adam Smith!

SCI: Uh, yeah, OK...but you know, the way you're driving is neither safe nor economical. Could you maybe slow down a little?

LIB: I decide what is economical; I can afford the gas. As for safety, I have insurance, and the little whatchamacallit meter in front of me goes all the way up to 140. I haven't exceeded the limit yet.

SCI: What you can do and what is safe and reasonable to do are two different things. If you want to experience natural selection first hand, that would be OK with me, except for the fact that we're both in the same car.
By the way, that's a lake a couple of miles ahead, and you're headed straight for it.

LIB: Lake? We haven't encountered any lakes in our travels so far. We don't have to worry about lakes. History is our guide, and it clearly says, "no lakes".

SCI: Well, yes, there's a lake right there in front of us. You can see it as well as I can, I hope. It's even marked right here on our map. I suggest you turn left just a little bit and steer clear of it.

LIB: Oh, you pessimistic doomsayers. You're always gloomily predicting our demise, and you're always wrong. We hit a mud puddle a few miles back, and see? No problems.

SCI: I'm only predicting doom if you keep driving as foolishly as you have so far. I suggest that we start on this alternate route now, so that we don't have to swerve too sharply at the last minute.

LIB: There is no lake. I like driving fast and straight. The last thing I want to do is turn left.

SCI: What do you mean, there is no lake? It's right there! And we are getting closer by the minute! Why are you accelerating?

LIB: That there is a lake is only your opinion. We need to study this, and get more input.
(LIB reaches down beneath the seat. His hand reemerges with a sock over it.)

SOCK: No lake!

LIB: Hmmm. We seem to have two opinions here. Since Mr Socky has taken economic considerations into account and you have not, I can judge which is the better and more informed. Sound science says there is no lake. Or if there is, we can accept the compromise solution that it will disappear before we reach it.

SCI: We are headed for that lake at 80 miles per hour, in a car driven by a lunatic. Slow down and turn left!

LIB: I am confident that our innovative and technologically sophisticated economy will come up with a solution before we impact any hypothetical lake. Right, Mr Socky?

SOCK: 's alright!

SCI: I have been telling you what the solution is for the last 3 miles. Slow down. Turn. Now. How is science going to save you if you insist on ignoring it?

LIB: Aha! Look! There's a pier extending out into the lake! I told you that technology would be our salvation. You scientists always underestimate the power of the free market.

SCI: Jebus. That's a rickety 40-foot wooden dock. You can't drive at 90 miles per hour onto a short pier! BRAKE! TURN!

LIB: You are getting emotional, and can be ignored. Market forces and the science and engineering sector will respond to our needs by assembling a floating bridge before we hit the end. Or perhaps they will redesign our car to fly. Or dispatch a ferry or submarine to our location. We cannot predict the specific solution, but we can trust that one will emerge.
I've always wanted a flying car.

SCI: Gobdamn, but you are such a moron.

(car tires begin rapid thumpety-thump as they go over planks)

LIB: I love you, Mr Socky.

SOCK: Ditto!

[coyote]

Okay, I haven't posted for a little while, but here's the response I wrote to the article:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', ''')"Colin Campbell has the worst forecasting record on oil supply," says Mr. Lynch, "and that's saying a lot." He points out that in a 1989 article for the journal Noroil, Mr. Campbell claimed the peak of world oil production had already passed and incorrectly predicted that oil soon would cost $30 to $50 a barrel.'

Yes, Colin Campbell has been wrong in the past. As much as anything else, this underpins the dangers of selecting any particular date for future predictions at all. If you're going to point the finger at Mr. Campbell, then you must also note something else: the sometimes mistaken predictions of the USGS, upon which so many other optimistic predictions -- those of CERA, the IEA, etc. -- are made. In the 1960s, the USGS believed that the United States would not have an oil production issue for decades -- similar, interestingly, to their current beliefs about world oil production. However, in 1970 US production peaked and has been declining steadily ever since, with peak production at Prudhoe Bay stopping the downward trend only very briefly. After the first world oil crisis had begun in the 1970s, members of Congress demanded an explanation as to why the USGS had not reported the peaking of domestic oil production. More recently, they've been forced to constantly revise their predictions of North American natural gas production downward, as year after year of falling production growth has proven their optimistic assumptions wrong. So it's clear that mistaken predictions can easily occur on either side of the issue. To ridicule the predictions of one side, all the while continuing to pin the world's hopes on the just-as-unreliable predictions of the other, is to fundamentally misunderstand the issue -- as I respectfully believe Mr. Lynch does.

Another misunderstanding: the importance of reserve growth. 'Mr. Economides points out that in 1976, the U.S. was estimated to have 23 billion barrels of reserves remaining. In 2005, it still had 23 billion barrels of oil reserves, even though American oil fields produced almost 40 billion barrels of oil between 1976 and 2005.' What Mr. Economides fails to point out is that US production has been declining relentlessly during this entire period, with only brief reversals, and despite all efforts, investments and improvements in technology. Peak oil is not about reserves or reserve growth. Peak oil is about production. Reserve growth will only delay the peak so long as it remains prodigious enough to, along with new discoveries, completely offset declines from other existing fields, and also handle worldwide growth in demand. So far it has done so. But some data show global reserve growth beginning to lose steam, and new discoveries have been on the wane for four decades.

Michael Economides also states: '"I can produce 20 million barrels of oil in Saudi Arabia."' That is quite a statement; but Mr. Economides, being a professional petroleum engineer, should be respected as a credible source of information on the topic -- even though he almost certainly has not been privy to Saudi Arabia's internal accounting. How about Dr. Sadad al-Husseini, the former chief geologist for Saudi Aramco, who certainly has been privy to that information -- and states unequivocally that the world is heading for an oil shortage? From an interview with Peter Maas: 'When I asked whether the kingdom could produce 20 million barrels a day -- about twice what it is producing today from fields that may be past their prime -- Husseini paused for a second or two. It wasn't clear if he was taking a moment to figure out the answer or if he needed a moment to decide if he should utter it. He finally replied with a single word: No.' (New York Times, 21 Aug 2005.) Which source is more credible?

Bottom line: there have been many mistakes made on both sides of this argument, and there is no one person or organization who can say for certain exactly when peak oil will occur -- just that it almost certainly someday will. Given the recent production declines at Cantarell and the North Sea fields, and concerns at Burgan field and elsewhere -- it is at least possible, if not likely, that the peak may occur in the near term. If it does, and we are unprepared for it, then we may also be unprepared for the cost.

[Geko45]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'O')kay, I haven't posted for a little while, but here's the response I wrote to the article: