Barron's take on  peak oil:

Editorial Commentary
No Peaks Without Valleys --- The price of oil follows a well-trod path
By Thomas G. Donlan
500 words
21 August 2006
Barron's
W35
English
(c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

In 1956, geologist M. King Hubbert predicted that the U.S. would hit peak oil production in 1970. He was right. No matter how fast wildcatters have found new reserves or producers have drilled wells, new supplies have not offset declining production from older wells.

Hubbert died in 1989, but his followers now make the same prediction about world oil production: Between 2004 and 2030, the world has reached, or will reach, the peak, and no amount of furious searching will ever replace all the wells that are running dry.

There's a lesson here, but not the one that oil prognosticators offer. The lesson is not to ask geologists about economics. Hubbert's prophecy holds only as long as the price of oil defines the supply.

We have no idea how much oil there is still to be found. What we do know is that the more that oil prices rise, the more oil will be produced. Furthermore, the more oil that is produced, the more likely it is that prices will fall.

A quick look around the world finds undefined oil in many places. Venezuela has more oil than Saudi Arabia, if you count its ultra-heavy crude and tar sands. Canada has more than Saudi Arabia, if you count its tar sands. The U.S. has more than Saudi Arabia twice over, if you count its oil shale and coal, which could be converted to gasoline and diesel fuel.

Price is the problem, not geology. At the $20 per barrel average market price (adjusted for inflation) that has prevailed for decades and determined what oil can be produced at a long-term profit, tar sands, oil shale and coal conversion have not looked like good investments. It costs too much to build the extraction industry and rebuild the refining industry, so these resources aren't counted as reserves.

Once upon a time, however, it cost too much to drill in a far-off desert and build a fleet of supertankers to carry the oil to customers. Once upon a time, it cost too much to drill offshore and build underwater pipelines to carry the oil to customers. Then, when some critical oil field in Pennsylvania or Texas reached peak production and market prices rose, the required investments suddenly made sense. Once the industry adapted to the new definition of producible oil, the new supplies supported by new infrastructure overwhelmed the market and the price fell back to that inflation-adjusted average of about $20.

We can't tell how high the price of oil has to go this time, but we should be nearly certain that the process of boom and bust will prevail at least once more.

Oil at $70 means oil at $20 eventually.

---

I may submit a guest opinion piece in rebuttal to this. The irony of course is his certainty that oil won't peak, even as the latest data show declining production.  

Donlan is a serious right winger -- of the WSJ editorial page ilk. He's kind of the editorial voice for Barron's -- a fundamentalist on a number of fronts including that "markets solve all problems". At very least you should write a good rebuttal letter. They have a good and vigorous letters section.
There is something to be said for this arguement. It would have once seemed almost impossible to pump 80 mbpd of conventional oil (I mean just try to imagine how much oil we are shifting daily - it's a massive operation). I am sure that all this unconventional oil will become viable on a larger scale eventually (it too will be a massive operation). The market does work the way this article suggests. Of course we all know that other energy sources will have to be part of the solution too.

However I think he is glossing over the fact that it takes time for this market force to play out and while we are waiting for the market to work it is likely to be painful from an economic point of view.


If climate change were not (to my mind) an even more dire threat than production declines in petroleum, I'd be enthusiastic about the possibility that perhaps he's right. But $20 CTL would be a catastrophe beyond words. Our army of cars still running yet producing several-fold more CO2?

I mean, even entertaining the notion is bat sh*t crazy. Completely detached from reality. Unless... maybe the market will solve climate change too!! (yes, that's a joke. Though I'm sure there are plenty of people who would accept it on its face.)

I agree. I don't like CTL on enviro grounds. Would rather go straight to renewables. But a fact is a fact, on economic grounds alone CTL is cheaper. Personally I'd rather pay more and have a clean enviro. I just don't think the average man in the street feels like that and I am convinced most Asians dont think like that.
"The market does work the way this article suggests."

No, it doesn't.  The discovery of oil is  historically inversely related to price for one thing, in complete contradiction to current economic dogma.  And you should take a close look at developments in the tar pits of Alberta, where the ramping up of production is small, slow and increasingly expensive.  Tar sand development, just like wind, solar and the rest, is built on a conventional oil and natural gas platform, and that platform is sinking, despite increasing prices.  And then of course there is the stress, or should I say kick to the head, that is coming from the accelerated destruction of infrastructure as the production of green house gases by the oil industry increases, due to the shift to the production of oil from degraded hydrocarbons (tar sands) and other energy intensive extraction and production efforts.  This destruction is no more than the consumption of embedded energy...gone gone gone.

What you are about to learn is that the 'free market' system is also built on a transitory platform: the increasing availability of higher and higher quality energy, a phenomenon that has marked the era from Adam Smith to about yesterday. The faster we increase the proportion of tar pit oil and coal, in particular, in our energy mix, the faster this platform will degrade and the faster the 'free market' system will erode.

The dogmatic fundamentalist writing for Barron's might have made an argument for the prolongation of the 'free market' system (do you think there is anything about our system that Adam Smith would recognize?)had he focused on the ability of creative people to leverage more goods and services from a given unit of energy.  But then, since creativity is so obviously dependent on socially provided goods such as education, I can see why he stuck with the core of his (and perhaps your) dogma.  

Right-O

You know, sudden insight here, the whole Adam Smith thing is like.... growing up. You see, there's a portion of one's childhood that is a process of greater and greater resources. You get over the whole learning how to walk thing, your legs get longer and you're done losing teeth and getting your grown-up ones, and it seems like every day you can run a bit faster or climb that tree one branch higher. This is accompanied by more food, if for no other reason than you are now tall enough to see what's on the kitchen counter to snitch some, and you're enlarging your circle of friends and that means more moms to cadge from. You're learning new berries and stuff too. This is often what's considered the "formative" years, from about 8-12 years old, where much of your world-view is formed. From 13 to 19 or so, sex is a distraction but you're still getting physically bigger, stronger, and learning more. So, it's easy to see how the Adam Smith view of the world would appeal to a new American invader culture where one was an adult with adult responsibilities by age 17 or so.

Adam Smith and Ayn Rand and so on do not hold much comfort for the sick, the hungry, the old, the frail, etc. Like the modern high-tech culture, you're a superman or you're a "luser".

Rampant fundamentalism (without of course any idea of the fundamentals)!!
Mindbending economics.  The time I spent reading this would have been more productive if I had used it walking to the fridge for a chilly beverage.

There are better ways to bend the mind.

Yep. It is comforting to know that CTL fuel will be available at $20. The invisible hand is magical, usually when it is picking your pocket.
Is that $20/gal or $20/liter? :)