What if we don't run out of oil?

The debate over "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" has begun to take familiar lines. "Peak oil" adherents continue to insist that oil resources worldwide are depleting. This mantra is repeated almost like an article of faith.

Ever since M. King Hubbert drew his first "peak-production" curve, statements of this tenet are easy to find. Typically, the "Peak-Production" theory is articulated as so well established that further proof is not needed. "Peak production" statements abound in publication. Consider this example written by an energy consultant in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

Petroleum reserves are limited. Petroleum is not a renewable resource and production cannot continue to increase indefinitely. A day of reckoning will come sometime in the future. The point at which production can no longer keep up with increasing demand will mean a radical and painful readjustment globally to everyday life.

To counter this argument, Craig Smith and I have argued that proven worldwide reserves of oil are currently estimated by the Energy Information Administration at 1.28 trillion barrels, the largest amount every recorded in human history, despite worldwide consumption of oil doubling since the 1970s. Oil prices are currently declining suggesting ample worldwide supplies are available – oil prices are not increasing as would be expected if chronic oil shortages were imminent.

In response to an article we published here about Brazil's offshore oil discoveries, one bulletin-board poster commented: "Corsi is pushing his abiotic oil agenda. He keeps repeating the canard that oil comes from dinosaurs. NOBODY BELIEVES THAT!" This prompted a response with a correction and an objection: "I suppose you meant to say 'the canard that oil does NOT come from dinosaurs and ancient flora debris'? That's the reason why we call oil a fossil fuel." Even better yet was this: "Who says that oil came from 'dinosaurs and ancient forests'? What a moron."

Interestingly, many critics seem ready to give up the "Fossil-Fuel" theory of oil's origin, as long as they can continue to advance the "Peak-Production" theory. Regardless where the oil comes from, this particular type of critic argues, we are still running out. This line of analysis misses a key point of the abiotic, deep-Earth theory of oil's origin. If oil is naturally produced within the Earth's mantle, oil may well be a renewable resource.

Then, there were some abusive ad hominem attacks, as expected in this heavily charged political environment in which differences have become polarized. Some posters argue that as a "discredited" co-author of "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," nothing I write is credible, regardless of how well documented or argued. Here are a couple of examples. "This guy was also co-author of a smear book against John Kerry by the Swift Boat liars ... highly credible!" Or, again: "This man is an architect of the Kerry swift boat smear, so I am unconvinced of his ability or desire to maintain a dispassionate and analytic stance with respect to this topic." Evidently, there are still many who do not accept that John Kerry lost the presidential election of 2004, as there remain many who refuse to accept that Al Gore lost in 2000.

In the final analysis, many on the political Left appear to have gravitated to embrace "Peak-Oil" theories because the argument that we are running out of oil fits in with their overall pattern of leftist political beliefs. Spend any time on the peak-oil bulletin boards and you will find many comments from posters who appear happy at the prospect we may be running out of oil.

Underlying their enthusiasm for "peak oil" is an anti-oil, anti-business attitude that feels our advanced capitalist society is "bad" or "wrong," wasteful of the Earth's valuable natural resources in the pursuit of a materialistic, lazy lifestyle. Posters of this disposition simply want to dismiss any other theory without serious consideration. Here's how one poster summed up that attitude, "Ugh, more abiotic oil crap ..." The ellipsis typically was not followed up by rational argument. Evidently, the poster felt the "Peak-Oil" thesis was just too obvious or well-established to be in need of defense.

U.S. auto manufacturers are on the verge of bankruptcy for reasons that have nothing to do with the value of their "investments." In fact, U.S. auto companies are going broke specifically because they are forced to continually "invest" in people who haven't been productive assets to the company in years.

It's basically the equivalent of an oil company that shuts down major drilling rigs but still insists on keeping them in tip-top shape long after they cease to function. You can be sure that company is going to go broke some time down the road.

Will there be problems? Maybe - but it's not the apocolyse.

How do you draw that conclusion, though? Technological changes do not necessarily come in a regular, predictable manner, or at the rate we'd all like. We've got 6 billion people in the world, though, and the world population is growing very quickly. Not only that, but capitalism is making countries which previously lived in poverty much richer, and as they get richer, they demand more oil. The demand is escalating very quickly.

If you read most of these posts, they basically say, "don't worry, there is no problem." When people start saying that kind of thing, you can bet that there WILL be a problem.

...the left because the left is empowered by denying the necessities of life to good people. It is the same tactic used by any extortionist thug.

Well said. I like to look for the point at the end of a reason. I think your post is sharp. It points out that the left is nothing more than a puritanical strain of human being. Those willing to accept their dogma are to be blessed, those not are to be cursed.

Compared to the 99 cents a gallon in 1999, prices have gone up big time in constant value. The price index has not doubled since then, yet the price of gasoline has more than doubled.

True, but if you look at the price of gas since the 1980's when it was much higher, the price today is about the same. Prices rise and fall, but over the long run they haven't increased that much.

As the oil companies adjust to the increased demand from Asia and the supply disruptions from Katrina, the price will continue to fall.

Old wells/fields ARE regenerating. You are correct that they are nowhere near their original level of production. And you will note that I did not say "rapidly refilling".

We will never run out of oil. We WILL reach a point where demand exceeds the ability to produce.

As to geologist believing in fossil fuels, Of course they do, that is what they were taught in school. Theory changes, the state of the art changes, NO reputable geologist believes in Dyson Unifromitarianism any more but is was taught in schools at one time. No sane person believes in socialism any more, but governments still practice it. There is no scientific evidence to support the theory of man made global warming, but it is still given wide credence. The list goes on.

The problem with most of these arguments about energy production is that they are usually Zero Sum arguments.
In the 60's we were going to run out of food in 50 years ( the Population Bomb), in the 70's it was the coming ice age (I still have the Nasty Geographics to prove it), in the 80's it was the Ozone Hole, in the 90's it was Global Warming, and now its Oil. Pick your crisis, it will be a non issue in a few years.

You are correct in that technological advances do not come in predictable schedules.

What you should ask is what market/political conditions would make it so that technological advances that society needs are developed.

A high enough price for a commodity will spur development on a cheaper alternative, but only if the rewards for the discovery of this alternative is large enough to make it worthwhile for the discoverer.

If the auto industry has "vast over capacity," then you wouldn't be seeing all of these foreign manufacturers opening new plants here in the U.S. in recent years.

The Big Three companies (not the industry as a whole) have lots of excess capacity -- mainly because they operate under a dysfunctional business model which makes them uncompetitive in the marketplace but at the same time makes it more expensive to cut production than to maintain current production levels.

I don't really agree with that. The auto industry has vast over capacity, and it's not just employees.

Its alright. If we can convince the French to allow more Muslims to burn more cars, the auto industry can step up to the challenge. Besides, what are the French going to buy? Peugeots?

There is factual evidence of oil wells thought to be dry "filling up" with attainable oil again.
The problem with this, of course, is that if true - and I suspect it is - this would drive the environazis absolutely nuts!

And cause the price of oil to stabilize once the "Dooms Day" fear could be eliminated.

There is nothing to say that in the year 2100, we will still be wedded to its use

In 1900, we were still wedded to horsepower. The thought of most American families owning a luxury like a car was inconceivable. Let alone, 2 and 3 car 'families'.

Who knows where we'll be in 2100?

The reason I come to that conclusion is basically that the problems have ALREADY been solved. Let me state it one more time - Bio-diesel and other methods have already proven to be a FUNCTIONAL alternative.

Forget windmills and solar cells. We can already run the engines we have on other fuels, with some existing technology. NO - it's not cheap right now. But - when gas gets more expensive, it WILL BE MORE ECONOMICAL. You WILL NOT have to ride a bike.

The law of supply and demand (human nature) dictates that when people are willing to get an industry such as that started, they are willing to pay for it, and the prices eventually come down, as more companies want in on the business.

THAT is how I draw the conclusion. If we had as many bio-fuel staions as gas stations, the competition would keep BOTH prices low. We just have to be forced to choose something besides gas, and that will trigger what I'm telling you.

It's not just oil supply. It's that PLUS economics, PLUS human nature.

"..Big Oil continues to jack-up prices at the pump. ..." ~ Willie Green

And just "who" is "big oil"? LOL

"....over 60% of oil is owned by governments and governments are trying to increase the amount of oil they own and control. For example, government owned companies from India and China are trying to buy oil rights from Canada, Brazil and South East Asia.

Major privately owned oil companies such as ExxonMobile and Shell control less and less of the world’s oil.

How will countries such as China and India react when there is a major disruption in oil supply? Will they allow the oil they control to find its way into the world’s supply system or will they gather it for their own use? ..."

http://www.tsaugust.org/

You can't permanently drive up the price of something by talking about a shortage.

True. That's why they have had to reintroduce the strategy about every 20 years or so - to get the additional spike in prices.

The only way to drive up prices is to restrict the supply. From an oil company's perspective it is insane to sit on inventory when the price is high.

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. My dad was an investigator for the Federal Trade Commission during the "oil embargo" of the 80s. He was assigned to find out what was really going on and what he discovered will shock you. He found oil storage tanks full to over flowing while people waited in long lines to buy their 10 gallons of gas. He discovered oil tankers loaded to the gunwales with oil parked just over the horizon where they couldn't be seen, because there was no place to put the oil.

Draw your own conclusions.

How will countries such as China and India react when there is a major disruption in oil supply? Will they allow the oil they control to find its way into the world’s supply system

Doubtful.

or will they gather it for their own use? ..."

And why would ExxonMobil or Shell care if they did?
After all, such action would dramatically increase the profit margin of the remaining oil that they DO control.

Frankly, it doesn't matter if "Big Oil" is China, India, ExxonMobil, Shell or OPEC...
NONE of the aforementioned entities have any interest in supplying American consumers with cheap oil that erodes their profit margins.

The enviro-whackos who oppose ANWR drilling are useful idiots who also help keep the price of oil jacked-up.
If they didn't evolve on their own, then Big Oil would've invented them, just to have another bogeyman to blame for high prices.

And Jerome Corsi is just another disingenuous Big Oil shill.
Who cares if his junk science is ideologically opposed to Algore's junk science?

Junk science is junk science no matter which faction of the Republicrat Party is chanting the mantra du jour.

Well, I don't know how much Engineering YOU have, but I'm a Mechanical Engineer, and I just happen to know a little bit about engines. There are many on the horizon that could be pretty happy running on soybeans.

As a mechanical engineer, you should have a decent understanding of math.

average oil production per acre is about 49 gallons
Biodiesel Fuel

The US uses about 373 million gallons of gasoline per day
This Week In Petroleum, Gasoline

The US uses about 169 million gallons of distillate (diesel and fuel oil) per day
This Week In Petroleum, Distillate

Looking at only the distillate, and only trying to produce 25% of the current need is 15.5 billion gallons per year. Or in soybeans production 316 million acres

Where is that going to come from?

If every person in America driving a mini Sherman tank as their primary passenger vehicle switched to a more efficient car, we could extend out the demand curve here in America quite a bit.

I see many who fit into the above category, including a lot of big-mouthed liberals who drone on and on about how wasteful America, but don't like applying their ideas to their own lives.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.