The peak oil proponents are making the same mistake that the Paris Club made in the 70's when the best and the brightest predicted that oil would run out in the 90's. They ignored the fact that the availability of a commodity depends on its price. If the price of oil is high enough, one can get oil out of oil shale, oils sands etc or even manufacture it from CO2 and H2O from the atmosphere. In fact that is what biodiesel and ethanol actually are: making oil from atmospheric carbon. The reason the oil in the US peaked is not because there is not any more oil but because of the existence of a massive supply primarily in the Mideast where the oil can be produced at about $2 a barrel. The US oil production peaked because the price to extract it in the US for many places has risen to be comparable to the $20-30 a barrel range that oil had been at for many years. If oil goes to $100/barrel, the oil production in the US will rise to another peak. Old wells will be uncapped, small uneconomic deposits will be pumped, and new technologies used to extract more of the existing oil. This phenomenon of multiple peaks in the US production has been observed in other commodities, most notably gold, the commodity that has been far more thoroughly depleted than oil. US gold production dropped significantly in the 60's and 70's as South African and other sources of gold were found. Then about 10-20 years ago, heap leaching of existing tailings was developed. US production rose so much that the US became one of the leading producers for a number of years. Now US gold production has dropped but there are multiple peaks in US gold production. It is quite clear that US oil production as well as the world can have multiple production peaks depending on the price and technology.
BTW, if one real cares about the environment, one should engage in open discussion about theories, experiments and comparison of evidence, not ad hominem attacks about funding etc. The advance of science has shown that a proper scientific process leads to a better outcome than the prior thousands of years ad hominem bickering. An ad hominem attack is often strong evidence for having no good argument. After all, if one had the good argument, there would be no need of an ad hominem attack.
Slashdot Mirror
The peak oil proponents are making the same mistake that the Paris Club made in the 70's when the best and the brightest predicted that oil would run out in the 90's. They ignored the fact that the availability of a commodity depends on its price. If the price of oil is high enough, one can get oil out of oil shale, oils sands etc or even manufacture it from CO2 and H2O from the atmosphere. In fact that is what biodiesel and ethanol actually are: making oil from atmospheric carbon. The reason the oil in the US peaked is not because there is not any more oil but because of the existence of a massive supply primarily in the Mideast where the oil can be produced at about $2 a barrel. The US oil production peaked because the price to extract it in the US for many places has risen to be comparable to the $20-30 a barrel range that oil had been at for many years. If oil goes to $100/barrel, the oil production in the US will rise to another peak. Old wells will be uncapped, small uneconomic deposits will be pumped, and new technologies used to extract more of the existing oil. This phenomenon of multiple peaks in the US production has been observed in other commodities, most notably gold, the commodity that has been far more thoroughly depleted than oil. US gold production dropped significantly in the 60's and 70's as South African and other sources of gold were found. Then about 10-20 years ago, heap leaching of existing tailings was developed. US production rose so much that the US became one of the leading producers for a number of years. Now US gold production has dropped but there are multiple peaks in US gold production. It is quite clear that US oil production as well as the world can have multiple production peaks depending on the price and technology. BTW, if one real cares about the environment, one should engage in open discussion about theories, experiments and comparison of evidence, not ad hominem attacks about funding etc. The advance of science has shown that a proper scientific process leads to a better outcome than the prior thousands of years ad hominem bickering. An ad hominem attack is often strong evidence for having no good argument. After all, if one had the good argument, there would be no need of an ad hominem attack.