Tucson Citizen.com
Wry Heat - by Jonathan DuHamel

Peak Oil Prognosticators at it again and are wrong again

by on Nov. 09, 2010, under Energy, Geology

A new study from the University of California (Davis) proclaims: “New forecast warns oil will run dry before substitutes roll out.”

The press release begins: “At the current pace of research and development, global oil will run out 90 years before replacement technologies are ready, says a new University of California, Davis, study based on stock market expectations. The forecast was published online November 8 in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. It is based on the theory that long-term investors are good predictors of whether and when new energy technologies will become commonplace.”

Really? Might not geology have something to do with it? Predictions that we will run out of oil have been made almost since oil was first produced in the U.S. in 1859 in Pennsylvania.

The Energy Information Administration shows that world petroleum reserves in 1980 were put at 642 billion barrels. In 2010, EIA puts world reserves at 1,354 billion barrels. How can reserves more than double in the last 30 years in spite of the increasing consumption?

The fallacy in all these doomsday predictions is that they don’t appreciate the difference between how much of a resource actually exists, versus the term “known” or “proven” reserves. The term “known reserves” is a purely economic and legal construct, which has nothing to do with how much petroleum is on the planet. “Known reserves” are that part of the total resource which have been precisely measured by extensive drilling and other means, and are “proven” to be economically recoverable with present technology. It costs money to make these measurements; exploration companies have little incentive to get too far ahead because of the expense. Every year, for at least the past 100 years, published accounts of oil reserves have stated that we have just 10- to 30-years supply left.

This situation applies equally well to other mineral commodities. For instance, in 1950 the proven reserves of copper represented a 42-year supply. Although copper consumption quintupled since then, we currently have proven reserves representing at least a 50-year supply. The concept applies also to the estimated resource base itself. For copper in 1950, the estimated resource base was 100 million tons. Since then we have produced about 338 million tons and our current estimated resource base stands at 650 million tons. In other words, technology, good geologists, and the market always find more resources or suitable substitutes.

The UC study also ignores the fact that new discoveries are being made of new off-shore resources, tar sands, and shale oil and gas, and the fact that transportation fuels can be made from our vast resources of coal.

And how well did all those investors predict the sub-prime crisis?


  • http://Brusselsblog.co.uk robert collins

    Sadly, this article misses several points.
    First, oil exploration is ongoing and new reserves will be found. This is true, but the scale of these discoveries is nothing like the vast reserves that were opened in the Middle East in the 60′s 70′s and 80′s. It is for this reason that we are currently drilling for oil in inaccesible places and in hostile environments. At present we consume three barrels of oil for every one that we discover.
    Second, yes there are billions of barrels locked up in oil sands, shales and tars, the so called unconventional sources. However, to extract oil from these sources consumes a vast amount of energy. The net gain in energy terms is too low to make these sources a viable long term replacement for the the cheap easy oil that flows from Suadi Arabia, Iran and Iraq.
    The oil is not finished but cheap oil is. At present in the midst of a recession it is trading at @$84 a barrel. It will undoubtedly go up when the economy begins to grow.

  • http://www.viz.co.uk Superman

    Go back to sleep America… live the dream.

  • http://Brusselsblog.co.uk robert collins

    America is asleep Superman, but it is living the nightmare

  • Ron Patterson

    The article says: ” It costs money to make these measurements”. What Mr. DuHamel doesn’t understand is that in OPEC nations no measurements are made, reserves are created with a pencil. Any measurements that are made are kept as a state secret. The reserves that are announced to the world are greatly inflated. OPEC nations, especially those in the Middle East, greatly inflate their reserves and actually have less than half of what they claim. Anyway peak oil is not about what is in the ground, it is about what comes out of the ground. We are at peak oil right now and have been at peak oil since 2005.

  • DH

    Just because someone keeps crying wolf it doesn’t mean the wolf isn’t ever going to arrive at the door.   With a finite resource there has to be a peak , new technology might keep moving the peak out but don’t confuse that with it never arriving.

    I suggest you look at the new IEA World Energy Outlook (the optimists have become pessimists).  This is a report that Governments use for planning.  They have stated Peak conventional Crude happened in 2006.   Lets hope the non-conventional grows as they hope.

  • wadosy

    we’ve got to deny peak oil, because, once you include peak oil, the 9/11 false flag attack and the “war on terror” make too much sense.

  • Wayfarer

    I don’t think the author even understands the concept of peak oil. Reserves are only tangentially related to Peak Oil. Peak Oil is the world wide production level above which production can not reach.  Since late 2004 production of crude oil has not increased. It is sad, when a newspaper prints something as fact without verifying it. Yellow journalism of all stripes is rampant in the U.S.. Misleading readers to make a buck is the norm.

  • http://www.deathbycar.info Michael Dawson

    Wayfarer, you are right. DuHamel lacks both basic knowledge of this issue and basic reading comprehension. The IEA is saying conventional oil is peaking. DuHamel seems to think that tar sands somehow refute that statement.

    If this is really the voice of Tucson, Tucson is in even more trouble than the radical mismatch between its population and its local resource base suggests.

  • Math nerd

    The problem comes with how “proved” reserves totalled are aggregated.
    You can’t add the “proved” reserves of one well to another.

    “Proved” reserves are a statistical estimation which is a non-linear function.
    The simple arithmetic of adding one well’s value to another doesn’t work.

    The mean value of the wells in question must be summed, and the variances must be summed as well.
    From that information, you can calculate the “proved” reserves of a particular nation, or the world.

    The means and variances are only known by the oil companies.
    The SEC requires the “proved” measure to be the published one.

    The current “proved” oil reserves (as published) is a SEVERE underestimation of how much oil is actually out there.
    That’s okay, the oil companies are perfectly happy to indulge the scarcity myth and charge you more for their product.

    If you don’t understand the math, find someone who does.
    They’ll explain it to you.

    • wadosy

      want to explain why cheney said, in 1999, that production woulnt keep up with demand?

      want to explain why PNAC said they needed ”a new pearl harbor”?

      want to explain why crude oil production has been flat since 2004?

    • wadosy

      the problem seems to be: yeah, there’s a of oil out there, but it’s locked up in ways that wont come close to producing the volume of oil that we need.

      please show us production figures from the canadian oil sands and venezuela.

      please tell us how many barrels of oil it takes to recover a barrel of oil from the canadian oil sands and the venezulean whatever and the shale oil whatever.

      please tell us  why the american government is enslaved  to israel, please tell us why america needed a new pearl harbor, please tell us why that new pearl harbor happened>

    • wadosy

      the logic of 9/11, peak oil, and the “war on terror” is kicking your ass.

      god and ten dollar gas
      http://www.zshare.net/audio/82354778ad11204a/

  • dv85739

    Meanwhile, the real enemies of the world: BigOil/OPEC laugh at western powers and emerging nations that will gobble up every barrel they can ship asap!
    The oil cartels run a monopoly and own most politicians…worldwide and will continue to do so as long as countries like USA “subsidize” BigOil/OPEC yearly to the tune of trillion$, under the false guise of terror alert/national defense!
    When alternative, renewable energies are given equal footing/financial incentives/tax loopholes,etc as BigOil/OPEC, only then will USA and the rest of the world get out from under the crushing footprint of fossil fuels!
    Technology exist to eliminate and delete BigOil/OPEC’s stranglehold simply by ramped up Nuclear/Solar/Wind/[NON-FOOD ethanols as a last resort]!
    Hydrogen fuel cell and electric powered transportation systems are only the start!
    Why put up with dirty, toxic BigOil/OPEC nonsense, when we could have transportation that that added H20 as it’s end bi-product?
    Clear the air…quality of life will improve, medical cost decrease, all WITHOUT the use of BigOil/OPEC!
    WHY not build jobs inside USA? A novel idea…I don’t think so!

  • http://Brusselsblog.co.uk robert collins

    Hydrogen is not an alternative to oil. It is an energy storage system. Ethanol like unconventional sources uses almost as much energy to produce as it provides in fuel.Check out the acronym EROEI and all will become clear. The way forwards is not to try to maintain our current lifestyle by looking for alternatives but to accept that the pattern of settlement in the US will have to change and the amount of energy it consumes drastically reduced