New York Times Debunks Peak Oil

The Times published a great article yesterday debunking the notion that the peak of world oil production is nigh. To wit:

Within the last decade, technology advances have made it possible to unlock more oil from old fields, and, at the same time, higher oil prices have made it economical for companies to go after reserves that are harder to reach. With plenty of oil still left in familiar locations, forecasts that the world’s reserves are drying out have given way to predictions that more oil can be found than ever before.

In a wide-ranging study published in 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that ultimately recoverable resources of conventional oil totaled about 3.3 trillion barrels, of which a third has already been produced. More recently, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, an energy consultant, estimated that the total base of recoverable oil was 4.8 trillion barrels. That higher estimate — which Cambridge Energy says is likely to grow — reflects how new technology can tap into more resources.

Of course, refusing to affect false modesty, I will mention that I did tell y'all that peak oil was bunk back in May 2006. The Times does overlook the worrying problem that an "oil crisis" could erupt anyway because of stupid or malicious behavior on the part of corrupt governments that "own" 77 percent of currently known reserves.

In fact, the vile Hugo Chavez has just seized a multibillion dollar oil project from Exxon Mobil and will likely do that to other companies soon. Venezuela's oil production is already falling below its OPEC quota and I predict it will soon get worse given the general effectiveness of socialist management. A point that I made back in May and more recently.

Anyway, whole Times article here.

Disclosure: I'm going to get around to selling those pesky 50 shares of ExxonMobil any day now.

Comments

tros | March 6, 2007, 12:12pm | #

Yeah, I never really expected oil production to peak by itself. I was more hoping that people would wake up and start using something else before the nuclear holocaust comes.

O yeah, and don't give the nukes to the phramaceutical companies or lumber companies either, they are just as evil.

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 12:20pm | #

AWSOME! Now I can expand the Carbon Credit Card Program.

I am hoping for $0.40 unleaded so that even more people can feel guilty enough to buy into carbon credit penance.

Too bad you won't be at the gathering on Thursday, I owe you a drink!

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 12:21pm | #

O yeah, and don't give the nukes to the phramaceutical companies or lumber companies either, they are just as evil.

Don't forget big tobacco!

Big hemp is fine though. Nuclear powered bongs I say!

Ron Bailey | March 6, 2007, 12:26pm | #

Guy: If you're talking about Reason's happy hour this Thursday, I will be there. BTW, I prefer Lagavulin. Of course, I may have to disclose that you bought me a drink. ;-)

biologist | March 6, 2007, 12:29pm | #

why "own", not own?

MikeP | March 6, 2007, 12:37pm | #

why "own", not own?

Dominion is not property.

Warren | March 6, 2007, 12:37pm | #

Unnecessary use of scare quotes. Good call biologist.

MikeP | March 6, 2007, 12:43pm | #

Unnecessary use of scare quotes.

Are slow-down-and-read-more-carefully quotes a subset of scare quotes, or a different animal entirely?

Bhh | March 6, 2007, 12:48pm | #

NYT debunking Peak Oil means it's time to go long oil stocks on margin. (Ok, maybe not really).

Ron Bailey | March 6, 2007, 12:49pm | #

biologist: I use "own" in this context because government's owning stuff generally means that it is treated much worse than when private entities own stuff. Think public parks versus Disneyworld. Or better yet think coral reefs, the Amazon, Filipino, Indosnesian rainforests, most oceanic fisheries, and so forth. Government bureaucrats have much less incentive to protect and make productive a government property than do private owners have to protect and make productive their property. Governments should "own" as little as possible and fiercely guard the rights of private owners. In this case, if Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP actually owned oil fields, the world's energy security would be much greater.

Ron Bailey | March 6, 2007, 12:51pm | #

Warren: In other words, a necessary use of scare quotes.

R C Dean | March 6, 2007, 12:52pm | #

Hey, if government ownership of vital resources doesn't scare you, what does?

joe | March 6, 2007, 12:57pm | #

"Government bureaucrats have much less incentive to protect and make productive a government property than do private owners have to protect and make productive their property."

That's exactly what happens when the Brazilian government transfers land to private owners in the Amazon! Exactly!

Make productive use of it? Oh, hell yeah!

tros | March 6, 2007, 12:59pm | #

"own"

Governments do no not own, they steal. Even if they stole it before you were born, that doesn't make it theirs.

Lamar | March 6, 2007, 1:02pm | #

Guy Montag: I'm embarassed for you knowing that you drive a car using unleaded gasoline. The only thing more sissy is one of them battery cars.

biologist | March 6, 2007, 1:07pm | #

Ron: thanks for clarifying.

FinFangFoom | March 6, 2007, 1:26pm | #

A problem with favoring private ownership of resources over government control is that if the government sells it to private parties, the government won't necessarily get the full of value of the property. Think privatization in Russia.

Government control as a sort of corporate ownership with the public as shareholders works fine as long as the government actually has the interests of shareholders at heart.

The government can work fine as a landlord assuming that it isn't too screwy, a la Venezuela.

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 1:30pm | #

Guy: If you're talking about Reason's happy hour this Thursday, I will be there. BTW, I prefer Lagavulin. Of course, I may have to disclose that you bought me a drink. ;-)

I will know that I have finally made it into the ranks of "Evil Corp Thuggery" when I see my handle in a disclosure by you Sir! Perhaps I shall purchase two for you even if this Lagavulin stuff is something John Kerry drinks with his Swisscheesesteaks at Pat's.

Lamar, silly man, get it right. It is alternative fuel, non-leaded hydrogen. C8H18. Must I draw you a picture or do you work for TNR and pictures only serve to confuse you? :)

Full disclosure: I use synthetic hydrogen instead of engine oil and transmission fluid. Still debating converting the Jeep to steam power or free-range bio-train-oil.

tomWright | March 6, 2007, 1:37pm | #

"50 shares of ExxonMobil "

AHA! So you admit to being corrupted and biased by the windfall of $1.4011 in dividends and BigOil profits!

And you even spread that corruption to the NYT by spending it on the paper, infecting it with your hydrocarbon hype! Have you no Shame?!

Now we can not even trust the NYT, you have forcibly forced it to accept money that has been touched by BigOil!

You evil hearted bastard!

Who can we trust now? Who, I ask you, who!

/end imitation of far-leftist-looney-luddite-rant

tomWright | March 6, 2007, 1:40pm | #

Guy, "John Kerry drinks with his Swisscheesesteaks "

No, if it is John Kerry, they must be Frenchcheesesteaks

jtuf | March 6, 2007, 1:44pm | #

Since people don't creat the natural resource, land property rights don't have the same roots as other property rights. Still, governments tend to treat land worse than private owners, because private owners expect to reap the future concequences of what they do to the land. For that reason, I think privately owned land is better than publicly owned land. Privatization is difficult to do fairly, because of corruption, so I'm OK with keeping already public land public. Idealy, the US could turn it's federal parks over to the Native Americans.

Lamar | March 6, 2007, 1:45pm | #

Guy: Get a car that runs off of burned copies of the Iraq Study Group Report. One can dream.....

antihostile | March 6, 2007, 1:45pm | #

Not so fast there...

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/15/83857/186

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 1:49pm | #

tomWright,

No, if it is John Kerry, they must be Frenchcheesesteaks

Swiss Cheesesteak.

Warren | March 6, 2007, 1:50pm | #

Ron,
Pardon my pedantism.[pours a round for the bar]

The Times does overlook the worrying problem that an "oil crisis" could erupt anyway because of stupid or malicious behavior on the part of corrupt governments that "own" 77 percent of currently known reserves.

In this context, the scare quotes around "oil crisis" are permitted, because they connote that it is a political crisis and not an actual oil shortage. However, in this context, the quotes around "own" are redundant. The connotation that "government's owning stuff generally means that it is treated much worse than when private entities own stuff" is expressed directly by "stupid or malicious behavior on the part of corrupt governments".

The suggestion that a government can't own stuff to begin with, I don't credit at all. I am completely sympathetic to the argument that no government should own oil reserves, mineral rights, and the like. But clearly governments, including our own, do own all manner of stuff, by any meaningful definition.

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 1:51pm | #

Guy: Get a car that runs off of burned copies of the Iraq Study Group Report. One can dream.....

Well, that is one way to boil water to make steam. I was thinking coal, since it is organic and renewable.

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 2:02pm | #

Ron,

BTW, I don't buy Peak oil, I buy Exxon/Mobil :)

tarran | March 6, 2007, 2:23pm | #

But clearly governments, including our own, do own all manner of stuff, by any meaningful definition.

Warren, I disagree. Governments may possess stuff, but they might not really own anything.

Onwership is defined generally as the moral right to control something. Posession is defined as the physical control of something.

For example, if I were to take your toothbrush and run off with it, I would possess your toothbrush, but you would continue to won it.

Generally people do not consider theft to be a means of acquiring ownership of something. The Rothbardian ideal is that a person comes to own something either by taking controll over an unowned thing or by getting the object's owner to cede ownership through peaceful means.

Thus much "public" property, having come into government hands not because it was peacefully acquired, but was siezed through violence, is not owned by the group calling itself "the government."

Granted, you could make that same argument to claim that I don't own my house, since I believe the American Indians who owned the land were driven off by force.

Perhaps this is what you mean by "meaningful"; since most people don't care about thefts that occurred more than a few decades ago - indeed, most legal systems incorporate a statute of limitations for many disputes over ownership - for all intents and purposes the object is owned by the person who ultimately bought it from the thief.

Despite this, I feel it is an important distinction to bear in mind.

Peak Oilite | March 6, 2007, 2:32pm | #

Oh, we'll have Peak Oil alright. Maybe not today, or tomorrow, or next year, but someday...SOMEDAY! Then you'll be sorry.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 2:39pm | #

Holy crap! I knew when I saw Peak antifreeze that Peak Oil could only be decades away!

Dan T. | March 6, 2007, 2:45pm | #

It's hard to say that government can't own anything when government is defined as the enitity who decides who owns what.

Libertarians are not to big on morality and other abstractions until it comes to property ownership - then we all have a mystical "right" to control stuff.

Ironically, ownership is anti-libertarian. If you are considered to be the owner of some land, that means the government will use force to prevent me from using it myself. So my liberty is restricted.

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 2:50pm | #

Dan T.,

Are you on peak hemp right now?

Ironically, ownership is anti-libertarian. If you are considered to be the owner of some land, that means the government will use force to prevent me from using it myself. So my liberty is restricted.

Your liberty does not include your use of other people's property without their permission.

Peak Oilite | March 6, 2007, 2:51pm | #

Ironically, ownership is anti-libertarian. If you are considered to be the owner of some land, that means the government will use force to prevent me from using it myself. So my liberty is restricted.

That's right. And making murder illegal is also anti-libertarian because it restricts my liberty to kill you.

fyodor | March 6, 2007, 3:25pm | #

I'll have to come down on the negative side of the great "square quote" debate.

When we speak of someone owning something, we generally mean in a legal sense. We may hope and expect that the legality of the matter coincides with how we view the morality of it, but it is the legality of the ownership to which we primarily refer. So if a government's ownership of property is consistent with its own laws, square quotes qualifying its ownership are not called for, however immoral one may consider such laws to be. Perhaps if a government acted contrary to its own laws such that the matter is still open to challenge, square quotes may be called for. But hell, square quotes are rarely if ever even used for a slave owner's ownership of his slave(s), and what can be a more immoral form of ownership than that!! (I should also note that Bailey himself does not even use the morality of government ownership in his own defense but rather just the appropriateness or efficiency of it, a much weaker argument that I don't see at all!!)

Lamar | March 6, 2007, 3:27pm | #

No, no, no. Ownership is very libertarian because you can build a fence to exclude somebody. They hop the fence, you sic the dogs on them. They throw a bone to the dogs, you shoot them in the leg, and so on.

The government got involved because vigilantism is very sloppy and uncivilized.

pigwiggle | March 6, 2007, 3:27pm | #

Libertarians are not to big on morality and other abstractions until ... Ironically, ownership is anti-libertarian ...

I, for one, am really glad to have had Dan T. around to help out with what libertarians are big on, and what libertarians believe, or even (my all time fav) why libertarian ideals never work out. But I think it's time for him to move on. Your work is done here, Dan. There is a conservative blog out there that needs your empty headed blah-blah and one line gotchas to straighten them out with that uniquely ignorant, yet condescending air you have. Godspeed, Dan. Godspeed.

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Lamar,

It was the sloppy vigilantis who gave it a bad rap as uncivilized.

Gilbert Martin | March 6, 2007, 3:31pm | #

Hey, that's right!

What a wonderful new concept of liberty!

Why that could be applied to everything!

How dare the Federal Reserve Bank post armed guards at it's locations. That restricts my liberty to walk off with $100 million in cash.

joe | March 6, 2007, 3:32pm | #

tarran,

Much of the privately-owned land in the western 2/3 of the United States was wrested into the possession of its current owners (or the previous deeded owners on the chain of title) through violence. So are you saying that the deeds to every house lot in Wyoming are worthless? Or are you saying that stolen property becomes legitimate after a period of time?

joe | March 6, 2007, 3:34pm | #

I wonder, who owns the land under the courthouse where the businessman goes to get an injunction ordering the protestors to get out of his parking lot?

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 3:40pm | #

Amazing absurdity.

One troll posting that his liberty includes taking the property of another. Another troll posting that taking property that nobody lays claim to be theft AND claiming that you should have to go to the court house for paperwork in a situation that some birdshot would solve quite easily. All in one thread.

tarran | March 6, 2007, 4:09pm | #

Much of the privately-owned land in the western 2/3 of the United States was wrested into the possession of its current owners (or the previous deeded owners on the chain of title) through violence. So are you saying that the deeds to every house lot in Wyoming are worthless? Or are you saying that stolen property becomes legitimate after a period of time?

A bit of both. :)

Morally speaking, I believe many of the titles are, in fact illegitimate. However, good luck finding someone with a legitimate title. The original owners are dead. It is unclear whom they would have transferred their ownership right to. Certainly at this point in time, there is no way to identify who is the rightful owner of what.

Also, there is no way to identify which titles are legitimate, and which are not. Let's say 98% of the land was taken through violence, and 2% was acquired through legitimate trade. How would we know which group a parcel of land would fall into? If we confiscate all the land to give to the putative heirs of the victim, wouldn't we be robbing those who own the 2%?

Additionally, how do we know that the pre-European inhabitants had acquired the territory legitimately? The native americans could and did wage wars of conquest.

The practical solution is to accept claims of ownership, unless someone can demonstrate a competing claim. Thus the passage of years, and the death and dispersion of the victims and their descendants, practically speaking, make those who acquired the land from the thieves and murderers of the owners.

tarran | March 6, 2007, 4:23pm | #

Dan T

Property rights do not come from governments. If you look at Iceland c. 1000 AD, where there was no government, no final arbiter of disputes, you will find a fairly comprehensive system of commonly accepted property rights.

Imagine that you washed up on a desert island. Wouldn't the shelter you built be your property even when there was no government to recognize your claim?

Weren't the Jews whose businesses were confiscated and given to Aryans in Nazi Germany the victims of theft, despite the fact that the German government, which was a legitimate government, declared the Aryans to be the rightful property owners?

Closer to home, did the Japanese who had their homes and businesses confiscated in the beginning of World War II by the U.S. government lose their claims on the property?

Governments generally establish themselves as having the final say in adjudicating disputes in the territory they claim. As such, they can support or undermine the recognition of property rights. However, that does not make them the source of property rights any more than a Catholic priest is the source of Holy Writ.

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 4:35pm | #

Actually, I do see an interesting situation coming out of the absurd assertion that property out west was stolen.

The governments of france and Spain could be forced to pay Indian tribes the price that they got for that land from the USA, plus interest.

Imagine the casinos thatou could be built off of that crazy scheme!

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 4:40pm | #

For the land in the east that the USA got from other powers, same deal. Force England and Spain to pay the people they "took" it from.

BTW, how do you take something from someone who does not have any claim of ownership?

FinFangFoom | March 6, 2007, 4:51pm | #

Incidentally, even if your title is bad, under the common law, you basically own the land after 20 years (or less depending on state law modifications). It's called adverse possession. You just have to claim you own the land (and usually believe it), "possess it" in the sense of actually using it, and do it openly and notoriously, which means you don't try to hide it. If you put your house on some land, live their twenty years, it's pretty much yours. Assuming that the land wasn't federal government land, then you can't adversely possess it.

Also, you've got it wrong if you think Europeans screwed the Indians. The Dutch paid 40 guilders for Manhattan. In today's terms, with a modest 9% return on that, the Indians should have like $83 trillion dollars. Talk about price gauging for Manhattan. They could buy all the land in the world for that. Sure, you say, but they don't have the money anymore. Is it my problem that they were profligate? No, its time they pay up.

Sam-Hec | March 6, 2007, 4:51pm | #

The article doesn't really 'debunk' Peak Oil...it says that it is a moving target.

Dan T. | March 6, 2007, 4:56pm | #

Weren't the Jews whose businesses were confiscated and given to Aryans in Nazi Germany the victims of theft, despite the fact that the German government, which was a legitimate government, declared the Aryans to be the rightful property owners?

Closer to home, did the Japanese who had their homes and businesses confiscated in the beginning of World War II by the U.S. government lose their claims on the property?

You seem to be backing up my point here - if the government decides you don't own your property anymore, then you don't own it anymore.

I suppose a better way of saying it, however, is that society is the grantor of property rights, with government as the enforcement arm.

tarran | March 6, 2007, 5:03pm | #

Dan,

You are confusing posession with ownership. Unless, of course, you are arguing that the German government shouldn't have paid compensation to the victims of the Holocaust...

Robert | March 6, 2007, 6:21pm | #

If most oil and did come from biomass, and represents a significant fraction of the total, and most free oxygen came from photosynthesis, and the fraction of total oil burned is significant, then why has the oxygen content of the atmosphere not budged?

MikeP | March 6, 2007, 6:22pm | #

The article doesn't really 'debunk' Peak Oil...it says that it is a moving target.

You apparently aren't very familiar with the theory the Peak Oil doomsayers have been proclaiming. This article is a resounding refutation of their position.

MikeP | March 6, 2007, 6:47pm | #

Mass of oxygen in atmosphere: 1.2 million trillion kg
Mass of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil: 160 trillion kg

Burning gasoline consumes about twice as much oxygen by mass as gasoline. Presuming crude oil is similar...

Mass of oxygen consumed by 1.1 trillion barrels of oil: 320 trillion kg.

So, if the oxygen were not replaced by any process, all the oil burned so far would produce a loss of 64 parts per million of oxygen in the atmosphere, or 0.027%.

Since oxygen is 21% of the atmosphere, I would wager that you couldn't tell if the oxygen content of the atmosphere budged or not.

MikeP | March 6, 2007, 6:49pm | #

64 parts per million

Make that 270 parts per million...

Lost_In_Translation | March 6, 2007, 8:30pm | #

I wouldn't write off peak oil just yet. I can tell you right now, even with the price of oil and gas where they are, there isn't enough drilling infrastructure currently to pursue most project. There are 3-5 year waiting lists for drilling equipment ordered today. Most deepwater project are almost a decade out for coming online, all the while consumption is increasing. And alot of those wells are still speculative on final production rates. I have a feeling that soon we'll start to really hurt buying fuel, it'll still be there, but for alot more money than we've been used to paying. Nuclear power will keep our house lights on in the future, along with many smaller energy generation plants, like hydro, wind, solar, and thermal, but oil will become a much reduced commodity, and while it will still be produced for decades to come, its price will be high enough that most of it will go to high profit uses, like ethylene, propylene feedstock and better margins. Gasoline will be a relic horded by classic car nuts like myself to keep our ancient jalopies on the road.

Oh, and american classic car prices will plummet in 2020.

MikeP | March 6, 2007, 8:47pm | #

even with the price of oil and gas where they are, there isn't enough drilling infrastructure currently to pursue most project.

And the reason the capital equipment supply can't scale up to serve the most profitable companies in the world as their reserves only get more valuable is...?

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 8:55pm | #

Burning gasoline consumes about twice as much oxygen by mass as gasoline. Presuming crude oil is similar...


Don't presume that. There are reasons we distill gasoline oand other fuels from diesel. One of them is that they combine with oxygen easier than crude does. Soeme other reasons too, but that is the big one.

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 8:56pm | #

MikeP,

Very good! Those static modellers are so annoying and I doubt that your comment will dent his brain case.

Guy Montag | March 6, 2007, 9:01pm | #

Oh, and american classic car prices will plummet in 2020.

Okay, you bank on that one while I add a six-pack to my 1972 Dodge Ralley Charger 'hybrid'. No worries, a "you were right" and a handshake by the victor is fine with me.

MikeP | March 6, 2007, 9:23pm | #

Don't presume that.

I know it's not precise. The "twice as much oxygen by mass" is already an approximation.

But you do remind me that more oxygen is actually consumed than I calculated, as the hydrogen in the fuel becomes water as well. I was counting only the CO2. I don't know by what process, if any, water becomes oxygen. If it doesn't at all, then you can roughly double the dent that I calculate above in the oxygen content of the atmosphere.

Lost_In_Translation | March 6, 2007, 10:15pm | #

Guy,

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm reasonably sure that classic american iron will be worth less in the future than it is now. Why? Because most of what's moved on the auction block are "drivers", cars people like to take out quite often and show off. There's a glut of these cars versus "collectors", pristine original restorations. Once the "drivers" become too expensive to take out alot, casual car guys will stop driving them and/or try and sell them. Future buyers will be of the "collector" group, looking for better examples and dramatically reduce the price of many "drivers". This in turn will send more "drivers" back to restoration shops for complete workovers for concourse appearance. They will then enter the market and drive down the cost of "collectors". From there some sort of market equilibrium will be reached, but many times below what it is today.

Paul | March 6, 2007, 10:44pm | #

You seem to be backing up my point here - if the government decides you don't own your property anymore, then you don't own it anymore.

You're precisely correct in these here modern Unified States of 'Murrica.

The government giveth, the government taketh away. The use of Eminent Domain has made that abundantly clear.

Guy Montag | March 7, 2007, 5:08am | #

MikeP,

The heptane reaction goes something like this:
C7H16 + 11O2 = 7CO2 + 8H2O

For octane begin with C8H18

Guy Montag | March 7, 2007, 5:10am | #

Lost_In_Translation,

Ah, so that is why the 1930s Woodies are worthless now?

biologist | March 7, 2007, 8:47am | #

MikeP:

oxygen is removed from water by photosynthesis

Eustace Scrubb | March 7, 2007, 10:56am | #

The Amazonian rainforest is privatized? I had the impression most of it was government owned, with areas leased out to private users and tribals. Am I wrong?

Sam-Hec | March 8, 2007, 5:20am | #

MikeP wrote:
"You apparently aren't very familiar with the theory the Peak Oil doomsayers have been proclaiming. This article is a resounding refutation of their position."

What is the title of the Ron Bailey article?
New York Times Debunks Peak Oil

What does it say at the end of the NYT article?
"In 1978, when he started his career here, operators believed the field would be abandoned within 15 years. “That’s why peak oil is a moving target,” Mr. Hatlen said. “Oil is always a function of price and technology.”'

Thus perhaps a better title for Ron would be:
"New York Times Debunks Peak Oil Doomsaying"

Peak Oil still exists, its the alarmism that is at fault. (so I am nitpicker...)

MikeP | March 8, 2007, 7:01am | #

“That’s why peak oil is a moving target,” Mr. Hatlen said.

No one doubts the existence of peak oil. It is Peak Oil that is in question.

Guy Montag | March 8, 2007, 7:35am | #

It is a good thing that my 'hybrid' Charger is green inside and out so I can help move that Peak Oil target.

Thank goodness it does not have a red interior or I would be pressured to join a political party!

So, Holly or Edelbrock? That is the big question. I can't smoke the tires with this Carter.

Bob | March 8, 2007, 2:55pm | #

The calculations above confirm my doubt about the fossil fuels hypothesis. If the reduced carbon & hydrogen and the free oxygen in the atmosphere were both primarily products of photosynthesis, and if the sequestered reduced material can be assumed to far outweigh the transiently-existing biomass, then one would expect the burning of a putatively large fraction of the reduced material to consume a correspondingly great fraction of the oxygen.

The fact that the oxygen content hasn't budged shows that there's a hell of a lot more fuel than you think, and/or that the fossil fuels hypothesis is bunk, and/or that photosynthesis is not the major source of free oxygen.

MikeP | March 8, 2007, 3:14pm | #

...Or that the vast majority of oxygen in the atmosphere comes from oceanic algae that has nary a chance of becoming fossil fuel.

I may be wrong, but my impression is that the quantity of limestone in the world dwarfs the quantity of coal, oil, and gas.

Kevin Carson | March 8, 2007, 4:41pm | #

All the Times article "proves" is that higher oil prices make it economical to go after the higher-hanging fruit, at higher marginal cost. Absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the levels of total oil production will peak. I read most of these articles "debunking" Peak Oil, and come away with no reason to believe the author even knows what he's arguing against.

MikeP | March 8, 2007, 6:31pm | #

The theory that was being sold as Peak Oil a couple years ago had two major components:

1. A shortfall in the supply of oil will result in a nearly instantaneous leap of the price beyond anyone's affordability, and the effects will cascade through the economy to seriously disrupt the modern way of life.

2. This is going to happen before 2010.

This Times article refutes both those points. Not only does it describe "new" oil reserves exploitable in the present day at present prices, but it offers a paradigm for more "new" reserves to become profitable as the price of oil rises, dampening the predicted skyrocketing of price.

Again, no one doubts that production of oil will peak. But the Peak Oil doomsayers foretell catastrophic consequences of that moment that run counter to all economic reasoning and experience.

That is what is being debunked. That is what needs to be debunked.

xiaonanok | March 8, 2007, 9:06pm | #

Welcome to our website for you World of Warcraft Gold,Wow Gold,Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,cheap wow gold,buy cheap wow gold,real wow gold,sell wow gold, ...
Here wow gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99 ,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy euro gold wow Cheap wow gold,cheapest wow gold store ... buy euro gold wow wow gold--buy cheap wow gold,sell wow gold.welcome to buy cheap wow gold--buy wow gold cheap, easy, wow gold purchasing.World of Warcraft,wow gold Super ...
We can have your wow gold,buy wow gold,wow gold game,world of warcraft gold, wow Gold Cheap wow, Cheap wow gold,world of warcraft gold deal,Cheap WOW Gold ...

Welcome to our website for you World of Warcraft Gold,Wow Gold,Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,wow gold,buy cheap wow gold,real wow gold,sell wow gold, ...
Here wow gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy gold wow lightninghoof instock Cheap wow gold,cheapest wow gold store ...
wow gold--buy cheap wow gold,sell wow gold.welcome to buy cheap wow gold--cheap, easy, wow gold purchasing.World of Warcraft,wow gold Super ...
Wow gold- Gold for buy gold wow lightninghoof instock EU-Server: ...wow Gold EU: starting from 84,99?; 3000 WoW Gold EU: starting from 119,99?. wow Gold- Leveling Services: ...
We can have your wow Gold,buy wow Gold,wow Gold game,wow gold, Cheap wow Gold, Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,world of warcraft gold deal,buy cheap wow gold,Cheap WOW Gold ...

Here wow Gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,wow gold buy wow Gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),Cheap wow gold,cheapest World of Warcraft Gold store ...

Ralf | March 17, 2007, 9:49am | #

World oil consumption (1996-2007) - The road to the crash (2020):

http://www.euroekonom.com/Graphs-html/oil-consumption.html