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.

I am not sure I agree with that. Yes, the technology is there, but I think you may be underestimating what it's going to cost to produce enough of that fuel to run our economy.

First, I question whether we have enough arable land to grow enough of the stuff, particularly with all the population growth we've had. Even if we do, remember that the cost of soybeans (and every other crop) is low because of oil. If oil is no longer available, then the price of all those crops will go up a lot, both because farms burn oil and because they use the chemicals derived from oil for fertilizer and pesticides.

Then you've got to process the crop, and that takes oil. Of course, we can do all that without oil, but if we do, then the cost of the crop will go up to an even higher price than it is at now.

And it really isn't very affordable even now, compared to oil. I think we're looking at a scenario where we would be lucky to have 1/2 the standard of living that we now have.

All of the gloom and doom comes from the assumption that the oil spigot will be turned off tomorrow, and that there will be an immediate need for something else for us to drive to work the very next morning. Your "analysis" is no different.

Every year, agricultural companies market yield-boosting products that increase crop production. Bio-fuels are not necessarily 100% "bio". Lots of them are mixtures with gasoline. A 50/50 mix would double the length of time we have to use gasoline - IF oil really is depleting at a rate we can't catch.

Every year, labs all over the world make progress in battery capacity. Every year, more and more efficient engines are produced. Ten years ago, there were virtually NO hybrids on the market. Look at that today... There are certain engine designs that could double or triple efficiencies, but are not yet proven.

MY ONLY POINT was, that the SKY IS NOT FALLING. It may be raininig - there may even be a tornado coming, but the SKY IS NOT FALLING.

This whole situation reminds me of a passenger in a car who is screaming that she will be killed by an approaching truck - when all the while, the driver sees the truck and is steering out of the way. Who's driving? Industry. Academia. Entrepreneurs.

All I'm saying is, I don't think that truck is going to hit us. But don't screw up the driver by passing laws that says he can only turn the steering wheel a certain distance, and the he must stomp on the brakes in a certain way.

I do a lot of investing. One thing that they tell you is that it's very difficult to predict what's going to happen in the future from what happened in the past. Just when things look blackest, that's when the market goes up. Just when everyone is investing like crazy, that's when the market crashes.

Same thing here. If everyone is confident that there is no problem, and we don't need to worry, then that's when you need to worry.

It's sort of like a self-fulfilling prophecy, except in reverse. If everyone is worried, then they are careful, and nothing bad happens because they are careful. If they are convinced that the goodtimes will roll forever, then they are wasteful, and reckless, and that causes their own downfall.

It's an upward trend, though, even after you correct for inflation, because the supply is exhaustible. That's what happens when you've got an exhaustible commodity. How fast it goes up depends on how fast you use it. Right now, we are using it very fast, primarily because of the exponential economic growth in India, China, and Russia.

You can find some other points in history where the price was higher after correcting for inflation. One of those was after the OPEC oil squeeze in the 70's. However, I don't think that I would want to relive that. Comparing the current situation to that, and thinking that it proves things are pretty good, is just nuts. That was the blackest economic situtation since the Great Depression. It's not saying much to say, "well, it was worse then."

I'm not suggesting that we should pass laws to solve this problem. I'm suggesting that people need to put more money and effort into solving the problem, and stop pretending that the problem doesn't exist.

Although frankly, I would be in favor of giving companies incentives to do research on things like biomass, fuel cells, etc. The problem with relying solely on the private sector to do that is that the only way to recoup investments like that is thru patents, and that is a very ineffective way of doing it. A lot of things aren't patentable, and patents end up in court. They also expire. In addition, they are basically monopolies. Anything that depends on a monopoly to make it work is at best what the economists call a "second best solution."

It points out that the left is nothing more than a puritanical strain of human being.

I never thought of the left as puritanical. They may pretend to be, but I've always seen them as hypocritical, hedonistic wasters like Barbara Streisand.

There was a book out recently, "Do as I say, not as I do", that exposes the lifestyle of these creeps. According to the author, even Ralph Nader is a fraud, living in luxurious homes in his children's name.

He found oil storage tanks full to over flowing while people waited in long lines to buy their 10 gallons of gas.

As I recall those lines appeared during the Nixon and Carter administration. The reason gas lines appear is because of government controls keeping the price too low. Of course they kept supplies off the market. After Reagan was elected he removed the price controls and the price shot up, and the gas lines disappeared.

If the oil companies are allowed to charge whatever they can, you will not see people lining up for gas because they will sell those inventories with the high prices. This is something that regulators don't like to talk about.

Read this from Wikipedia:

Energy Crisis

All of the gloom and doom comes from the assumption that the oil spigot will be turned off tomorrow

I am not of that mind set. I see constant technological advances in the oil industry. As an example, a decade or so ago, the West Sak, Schrader Bluff and Ugnu oil fields where not even counted in the reserves because the oil was too thick to bring to the surface (they are shallow relative to the permafrost in the North Slope). They are in the same area we have existing infrastructure, we routinely drill through parts of the formation to get to deeper oil so we have proven the existance and location. In the past couple years, West Sak and Schrader Bluff have started production with newer technology. The three fields have up to 36 billion barrels of oil. Tar Sands and Shale are now producing fuel and will become huge. I do not see any sky falling. Alternative fuels can and should be investigated, but realistic in the capability and requirements. And federal tax dollars should not be used to fund one industry against another when developing fuel.

You can find some other points in history where the price was higher after correcting for inflation. One of those was after the OPEC oil squeeze in the 70's.

The price of gasoline is influenced much more by political and economic factors than anything else. And I really don't see a long term trend in gas prices. Five years ago the price was lower than it was in 1970 even BEFORE the Arab oil embargo.

Yes, but the oil companies were losing their shirts at that time. It was not sustainable. If you want to look at the trend, you need to factor out the time periods when the market was not operating at a sustainable level. One of those was in the 90s.

The other thing you need to do is look at the price of oil, not the price of gasoline. The price of gasoline is heavily influenced by the refining industry, which has its own issues. An increase in the efficiency at the refinery level could mask a trend.

At some point, though, the price may go up enough that it might as well be completely exhausted.

So it's just a matter of price. Oil at my price is what I want.

And alas, $0.25 oil was exhausted long ago.

Why do you think there isn't enough research on energy production? Don't you think the oil companies executives take a very deep personal interest in the future? They spend billions on research and development.

The very last thing we need is to have politicians directing US energy policy. That's what I call a "second best solution". They don't know what they are doing and they are just as likely to take advice from Barbara Streisand as from an experienced scientist.

The problem with relying solely on the private sector to do that is that the only way to recoup investments like that is thru patents,

And yet, surprisingly, the industrial revolution and prosperity came about because of the private sector and the temporary monopoly of patents. We know that using government enterprise is a bad way to go because we see what happened to the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc.

I suspect 30, at most, before the price goes up so much that gasoline will be considered a luxury.

I'm old enough to remember the '78 shortage, and I remember reading in National Geographic that world oil reserves would be exhausted by the year 2000. Well, here we are.

I remember that when I was a kid, they said that the Mets would never win the World Series.

You can't assume that just because folks were right (or wrong) before, they will be right (or wrong) this time.

In fact, where what you think has an impact on consumption and investment, it's very likely that what you think will turn out to be wrong.

Yes, but the oil companies were losing their shirts at that time.

And today people are complaining about excessive oil company profits. It all averages out, but try to tell that to guys like Bill O'Reilly or to government pukes as they fire off subpoenas to oil executives.

An increase in the efficiency at the refinery level could mask a trend.

The increase in efficiency IS a trend. That's one reason price, supply and demand stay under control. 150 years ago machinery was a tiny fraction of the efficiency it is today. That's what the doom-sayers overlooked then and one of the things they overlook today and that's why we haven't run out of coal fifty years after we were supposed to.

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.