Debate brews: Has oil production peaked?

[NeoConsSuck]

Long article, but well worth the read.

Almost since the dawn of the oil age, people have worried about the taps running dry. So far, the worrywarts have been wrong. Oil men from John D. Rockefeller to T. Boone Pickens always manage to find new gushers.

But now, a vocal minority of experts says world oil production is at or near its peak. Existing wells are tiring. New discoveries have disappointed for a decade. And standard assessments of what remains in the biggest reservoirs in the Middle East, they argue, are little more than guesses.

"There isn't a middle argument. It's a finite resource. The only debate should be over when we peak," says Matthew Simmons, a Houston investment banker and author of a new book that questions Saudi Arabia's oil reserves.

http://yahoo.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-10-16-oil-1a-cover-usat_x.htm?csp=N008

[depakid]

1. LOL- the whole cornucopean case is built around Yergin!

I have news- serious scientists who look at this issue laugh at that guy and his "methods."

Listen to his rhetoric! He's a total shill- insulting and totally without substance. On the other hand, a guy like Kenneth Deffeyes, a Princeton University professor emeritus of geosciences... well, who are you going to believe?

I'll cast my lot with respected scientists, not money grubbing consultants- any day on any issue.

[YapiYapo]

2. So oil isn't a finite ressource and production can be increased anytime ?

I laught at any "serious scientists" that said there will be no peak.I laught at every people who beleive we can keep increasing production for decade.

Peak oil model was created by a geologist named King hubbert who predicted in the 50' oil production in america will peak in the 70' they all laughted at him, yet he was right.

Other people like Simmons and Yergin are just using that theory, sometimes to promote their own agenda.
This doesn't change the fact that oil is a finite ressource and will soon Peak.Every realistic study show a peak between 2010-2020.

[McKenzie]

3. ok, McKenzie states the obvious yet again

when people FINALLY wake up to what PO REALLY means, the illusion that it is all going to be fine will melt like ice in the sun.

Sweeping statements are rarely applicable to any given concept simply because the issues tend to be complex. But, PO is not complex...we have a society that is totally dependent upon CHEAP oil. Note: CHEAP, not necessarily ABUNDANT, oil. Our economies are so sensitive to fluctuations in the price of oil a relatively small increase in prices can have significant effects.

Factor in the possible demise of the dollar as the world's de facto Reserve Currency and...well, the implications for the US economy are significant to say the least. The trouble is so many other economies depend upon a healthy US economy.

Peak Oil is THE number one issue and sooner or later it is going to bite us all on the ass. It won't be just a case of driving a smaller car as prices increase. Oh no, it will be something a little more significant than that.

As I say in the message line...I'm stating the patently obvious yet again.

[YapiYapo]

4. But "they" will find a solution.

This is what i keep hearing when i talk about peak oil.

I'm really curious to know how they will manage to avoid the law of thermodynamic.

As for solution ,the only one i can see not involving a massive lifestyle change is a pandemic like the avian flu...

[McKenzie]

5. now that's a scary thought...

damn...you've got me into paranoid mode!

Cheers YapiYapo

[GliderGuider]

6. And factor in the fractional reserve banking system...

I'm a PO doom-and-gloomer, and I think a major calamity is in our immediate future. One of the things I think will tip us over the edge, that hasn't had the attention it deserves, is the total collapse of the global banking system. From a net article, here's the problem in a nutshell:

"The central problem, and it is a huge one, arises as a result of how closely economic growth is tied to oil and gas and not any oil and gas but inexpensive oil and gas. This leads directly to the even greater problem that the stability of our monetary system, fractional reserve banking, and hence our very societies is predicated on economic growth. Compounding this enormously destabilizing fact is the added problem that many of the safety nets that were put in place after the crash of 1929 to compensate for poor growth have largely been taken away over the last twenty five years."

Fractional reserve banking depends for its very existence on continuous economic growth - that's where the ability to pay interest comes from. If our oil-driven growth turns into a contraction, and people suddenly realize the contraction is permanent, what happens? Think of 1929 with no possibility of recovery in either the short, medium or long term. Do banks lend money with no hope of even recovering the full principal, let alone making interest? What happens to the outstanding loans? What happens when people want to reclaim their money from the banks? We are talking about a world-wide default, and the result is a sudden inability to use fiat money as a medium of exchange.

For me, the combination of increasing transportation energy costs, decreasing food supply and a banking system collapse is the Perfect Storm that will trigger massive, catastrophic, global changes. I hate feeling like this, but I see no way out.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. I agree. This is why it is wise to have

a house with solar panels, windmill, and a woodstove along with a greenhouse and a garden.

Sadly I can't afford to do that so I am screwed if PO shows its worst face in the near future.

[blindpig]

8. The madness of capitalism

at least as currently practiced. Hard to tell the difference between economic theory and theology: a linear progression of growth with no basis other than faith. Better if the economists took biology as a model where stability can be found in closed circular systems.

But where's the great profits in that?

[depakid]

9. Actually it's an open system

Though the neoclassical economists' models of exogenous and endogenous growth end up being nothing less than perpetual motion machines. Kenneth Boulding saw this as far back as 1966. Trouble it, there are limited energy inputs into the system, and they're currently not valuated rationally.

Gotta love this quote:

Deffeyes calls talk of substantial tar sands production "the fantasy of economists," adding: "They believe if you show up at the cashier's window with enough money, God will put more oil in the ground."