There Will Be Oil (advocates of 'peak oil' have wrongly been predicting a crisis in energy supplies)

Since the beginning of the 21st century, a fear has come to pervade the prospects for oil, fueling anxieties about the stability of global energy supplies. It has been stoked by rising prices and growing demand, especially as the people of China and other emerging economies have taken to the road.

Its advocates argue that the world is fast approaching (or has already reached) a point of maximum oil output. They warn that "an unprecedented crisis is just over the horizon." The result, it is said, will be "chaos," to say nothing of "war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens."

The date of the predicted peak has moved over the years. It was once supposed to arrive by Thanksgiving 2005. Then the "unbridgeable supply demand gap" was expected "after 2007." Then it was to arrive in 2011. Now "there is a significant risk of a peak before 2020."

But there is another way to visualize the future availability of oil: as a "plateau."

In this view, the world has decades of further growth in production before flattening out into a plateau—perhaps sometime around midcentury—at which time a more gradual decline will begin. And that decline may well come not from a scarcity of resources but from greater efficiency, which will slacken global demand.

Those sounding the alarm over oil argue that about half the world's oil resources already have been produced and that the point of decline is nearing. "It's quite a simple theory and one that any beer-drinker understands," said the geologist Colin Campbell, one of the leaders of the movement. "The glass starts full and ends empty, and the faster you drink it, the quicker it's gone."

“Are you ready for another big increase in the price of oil necessary to supply the world’s future oil needs?”

You’ve fallen into precisely the trap of the same people who falsely predicted peak oil every single decade since they started to worry about it back in the ‘20s. Every time known supplies shrink prices go up, yes. But this does not doom the industry, or hasn’t yet. If you knew anything about economics you’d know higher prices are an incentive to both more efficiently exploit known sources and to look for new sources.

The trend in booming industries is for prices to start out high and be competed down. Which makes perfect sense. Since when do producers go all in for something people can already get cheaply? Higher prices are a signal to buy into oil, not a warning sign to get out. Unless you truly think there’s no more left to find, in which case it’s a bad signal. But that’s never been the case before, despite 80+ years of false predictions.

“Thats a big reason the Japanese wanted China in the first place - not to make synthetic oil of course, but because Japan was resource-poor.”

That’s also a big clue as to how stupid Japan was, since it could get those resources without going to war by participating in this little thing I like to call trade. They made incredible advances in all realms of civilization by aping the West, only they forgot the economic part. But who wants to rise to world power for being rich when you can have all that fun raping China? I know who: anyone who doesn’t want to be nuked.

You’ve fallen into precisely the trap of the same people who falsely predicted peak oil every single decade since they started to worry about it back in the ‘20s.

In the US we reached peak oil about 1973, when even the wells in Texas could not keep up with demand. Texas went to 100% allowables then. When the US could no longer supply the rest of the world against an oil embargo, that is when OPEC raised its prices.

The US has been extensively explored and most of the big structures that could significantly boost oil production have already been drilled, with the exception of some big structures in Alaska and the deep Gulf.

The rest of the world has not been so extensively explored. As exploration increased around the world in response to higher prices and soaring demand, it resulted in more exploration and more discoveries. Production outside the US went up, but the US hasn't raised its production above the 1973 peak even at today's prices. That's because we ran out of good prospects or weren't allowed to drill in some prospective places.

Also, the price of oil is/was not high enough to justify developing oil shale, of which the US has plenty. If we went ahead and developed the oil shale, OPEC could drive the price of oil down and bankrupt those companies who developed the oil shale. At least, that is so as long as there is excess production capacity in the world.

As the world continues to drill its best prospects, they will eventually run out of such prospects and find themselves in the same position as the US. The price of oil will rise since supply won't meet demand. We will increase production from tar sands and other expensive prospects. IIRC, tar sands are more economic than oil shale, so tar sands are probably the next big source after production from conventional liquid reservoirs starts declining. How soon the world will get in this situation, I don't know.

If you knew anything about economics you’d know higher prices are an incentive to both more efficiently exploit known sources and to look for new sources.

LOL. I used to work in oil field development and bidding economics for a major. If the oil price goes up, it makes more marginal fields and risky prospects economic. The supply goes up in response to the higher price. Once conventional reservoirs cannot supply world demand, price will go up and prospects and source types that are not economic at today's prices will be developed.

Generally, I find semantic arguments pointless. OTOH, discussions about the meaning of terms are often necessary, for people to understand one another.

You are welcome to your definition of “hunter-gatherer” — and knowing what it is, makes it possible for me to understand your substantive points.

That said, “hunter-gatherers&rdquo (by my definition); exist even today, commingled with farmers, industrial workers, and postindustrial symbol manipulators. Agriculture didn't end hunting and gathering as means of a livelihood; nor did industrialization end agriculture. Farmers used to use pointed sticks and sharp rocks to do their work. Just because today's farmers prefer combines and pickup trucks, does not mean that they are no longer farmers. The same applies to hunter-gatherers in the North, who use snowmobiles, ATVs, and pickup trucks. Some of them still use dog teams and canoes to get around — but, both groups still live off the avails of hunting and gathering.

Hunter-gatherers traded with their neighbours, or even further afield. Take the Tlingit, along the coast of Alaska, for instance. They traded far and wide in their canoes. Their contact with western civilization came later than it did for aboriginals in the south. When it did, the Tlingit traded with the Russians, British, and Americans and continued to trade with the Haida and Athabascans.

Valid question.

The point is oil is not everywhere. You can’t drill just anywhere and get oil. There are places it does not exist. If you agree with that, then you agree it is finite, by definition.

The geology is such that millions of years of Japanese earthquakes have cracked any caprock they might ever have had. When caprock cracks, any oil under it fractionates over those millions of years and escapes. It’s also likely why NPR-A tested recently in western Alaska to have a tiny portion of the previous estimate. Too many millions of years in which an earthquake can occur and crack caprocks, and Alaska does have quakes.

Once you accept that there are places where there is no oil, then you have accepted that it is finite. When you have accepted that, then you have accepted there will be a point where frantic drilling can not increase production further.

And you accept that the next step after militarily securing supply is militarily reducing competing consumption. The east coast of China needs to be depopulated if American lifestyles are to improve, or even maintain.

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.