OpinionJournal.com’s “Peak Oil” Rebuttal
In an unsigned, read-the-whole-thing piece, OpinionJournal.com is on a roll (may require registration; bolds are mine throughout) as it shreds the “Peak Oil” (”we’re running out of oil and life as we know it will never be the same”) arguments:
The limits-to-growth crowd has predicted the end of oil since the days when this black gold was first discovered as an energy source in the mid-19th century. In the 1860s the U.S. Geological Survey forecast that there was “little or no chance” that oil would be found in Texas or California. In 1914 the Interior Department forecast that there was only a 10-year supply of oil left; in 1939 it calculated there was only a 13-year supply left, and in 1951 Interior warned that by the mid-1960s the oil wells would certainly run dry. In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter somberly told the nation that “we could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.”
We can ridicule these doom-and-gloom predictions today, but at the time they were taken seriously by scholars and politicians, just as the energy alarmists are gaining intellectual traction today. But as the late economist Julian Simon taught, by any meaningful measure oil (and all natural resources) has gotten steadily cheaper and far more bountiful in supply over time, despite periodic and even wild fluctuations in the market.
But won’t oil prices keep going up to the point of unaffordability?
If gasoline cost today what it cost a family in 1900 (relative to income), we would be paying not $3 but $10 a gallon at the pump. Or consider that in 1860 oil sold for $4 a barrel, or the equivalent of about $400 a barrel in today’s wage-adjusted prices. The first of a continuous series of innovations, in this case the invention of modern drilling techniques in 1869, cut the price by more than 90%–to 35 cents a barrel.
Fifty years ago people would have laughed out loud at the idea of drilling for oil at the bottom of the ocean or getting fuel from sand, both of which were technologically infeasible. The first deep-sea oil rig went on line in 1965 and drilled 500 feet down. Now these rigs drill two miles into the ground–and miraculously, the price of extracting oil from 10,000 feet deep in the sea bed today is approaching the cost of drilling 100 feet down from the richest fields in Texas or Saudi Arabia 40 years ago.
This spectacular pace of technological progress explains why over time the amount of recoverable reserves of oil has increased, not fallen. Between 1980 and 2002 the amount of known global oil reserves increased by 300 billion barrels, according to a survey by British Petroleum. Rather than the oil fields running dry, just the opposite has been happening.
Here’s a great rebuttal to the “this time it’s different” crowd:
In this industry, alas, bad news tends to crowd out the good. When Shell announced earlier this year that its oil and gas reserves were down by 30%, there was a global outcry. But when Canada announced in 2004 that it has more recoverable oil from tar sands than there is oil in Saudi Arabia, the world yawned. There is estimated to be about as much oil recoverable from the shale rocks in Colorado and other western states as in all the oil fields of OPEC nations. Yes, the cost of getting that oil is still prohibitively expensive, but the combination of today’s high fuel prices and improved extraction techniques means that the break-even point for exploiting it is getting ever closer.
The energy Malthusians counter that China, India and other nations will satisfy their growing appetite for oil by driving demand and prices ever higher. In the short term, yes. But over the longer term, as the Chinese become more prosperous through free markets, China will become vastly more fuel efficient and also help discover new sources of energy.
Finally, if there is to be a problem with oil, we know who to point the finger at:
Our point is that the constraints on our ability to find and extract new oil are not geologic or scientific. The real constraints on oil production are barriers created by government. Myron Ebell, an environmental analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, notes that roughly 90% of the oil on the planet rests under government-owned land and these resources are abysmally managed.
In the U.S., environmentalists have erected myriad barriers to drilling for new sources of oil. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that there are at least 100 billion barrels that are fairly easily recoverable in Alaska and offshore that oil companies are not permitted to exploit. Once, we could afford the luxury of not drilling there. Now, thanks to a witch’s brew of unforeseen circumstances–political turmoil in the oil producing countries, China’s surge in demand, and hurricanes that have knocked out Gulf refineries–it’s an economic and national security imperative that we do.
_________________
UPDATE: Porkopolis has more, including links to heavyweights like Peter Huber and others. He has been on the energy case for some time.
_________________
BizzyBlog Flashback:
- August 26: I’m Tired of the Oil-Price and Oil-Supply Obsessions











Opinion Journal: The Oil Bubble
‘The Bottomlwess Well: The Twilight Of Fuel, The Virtue Of Waste, And Why We Will Never Run Out Of Energy’ by Peter Huber is a good complement to the editorial.
Trackback by Porkopolis — October 10, 2005 @ 8:25 pm
“…the cost of getting that oil is still prohibitively expensive, but the combination of today’s high fuel prices and improved extraction techniques means that the break-even point for exploiting it is getting ever closer.”
Hello! That’s almost the definition of Peak Oil. We have to get to the expensive stuff because the cheap oil is running out.
Part of the reason the expense is higher is also because it takes energy to extract the oil. There are a couple of hundred bbl of oil available to extract from the Alberta oil sands, for example, but it takes a tremendous amount of natural gas to heat the slush and “melt” the oil out into a form that can be processed. Natural gas is getting increasingly scarce, also, so Canadians will have to make a choice between heating their homes and factories, making nitrogen fertilizer, or extracting petroleum.
Comment by Fritz — October 10, 2005 @ 10:57 pm
Uh, no, because the “expensive stuff” will become less expensive to get as technology improves, as will refinements or substitutes for natural gas at some point. And of course ways to get more things done with less energy burned will continue to be developed.
Comment by TBlumer — October 11, 2005 @ 12:10 am
WSJ, go dig yourself a deeper hole. Ha Ha.
We’ll leave the lights on for you. Well, maybe not.
Comment by Webster Hubble Telescope — October 13, 2005 @ 1:38 am
#4, the Peak Oil people are making the Y2K crowd look sane.
Comment by TBlumer — October 13, 2005 @ 11:45 am
Yes, some look a bit depressive. It does not disprove the fact that light sweet crude oil production has peaked. That is now a historical fact.
Comment by Webster Hubble Telescope — October 13, 2005 @ 10:36 pm
From “The Myth of ‘Peak Oil’”
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1717
I don’t necessarily trust technology, but I do trust human ingenuity. Civilization as we know it will grind to a halt without the energy we derive today from crude oil, and that’s in and of itself is motivation enough to make sure that future energy is widely available at prices people can afford.
______________
“Peak Oil” is a flimsy excuse either to attempt a statist takeover of the energy industries by those who know we need the energy and don’t trust human ingenuity to come up with alternatives, or to radically change our way of life back to some prior pre-energy-guzzling Utopia that never existed and never will for those who think every advance since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution has somehow been evil.
I’ve seen people at the Peak Oil site openly advocate euthanasia and tell everyone that they have a duty to die or kill themselves by age 65 with no resistance or counterargument from other commenters. As a person who thinks life is precious, you’ll have to excuse me if I take arguments like that about “culling the herd” a bit personally.
Comment by TBlumer — October 14, 2005 @ 12:18 am