An abundance of oil

Fears over dwindling supplies of energy, ‘peak oil’ and future spikes in fuel prices may be overblown

by Chris Sorensen

RICHARD LAM/CP

In June 2008 the price of a barrel of oil briefly hit US$145, sparking questions about an impending global shortage. But then the recession hit, demand dropped and prices plummeted to US$30. There’s no question the economic downturn resulted in idled factories and fewer gas-guzzling family summer vacations in the SUV, but it still doesn’t come close to explaining how the price of a barrel can fluctuate by more than US$100 in just a few months, raising the question of how much the precious resource is actually worth in the first place. The answer, says analyst Peter Beutel, the president of energy consultancy Cameron Hanover, is not much more than $10, based on a pure supply and demand calculation.

Beutel offered the lowball estimate during an interview with CNBC last week, arguing the price of oil is generally elevated because it’s treated as an investment—something bought with an eye to making money, not simply a resource to be consumed. “The volatility comes from speculators,” agrees Frank Atkins, a professor of economics at the University of Calgary.

“People are basing their view on the price of oil on expectations of demand.” That’s why prices, now around US$75 a barrel, are once again on the rise in anticipation of a global economic recovery, even though oil supplies are at their highest level in more than a generation, with some 50 million more barrels of crude on hand than two years ago—the result of oil companies rushing to increase production during the last boom.

The current abundance of crude also suggests concerns about “peak oil”—the idea that global production is about to hit its zenith, sending prices skyrocketing and causing economies to crash—could be overblown. Part of the problem is that the “peak” itself is a moving target. As existing supplies dwindle, prices go up and oil companies are coaxed into spending more money on new exploration and new technologies to recover oil that was otherwise believed to be uneconomical. That was the case with Alberta’s oil sands. At the same time, consumers change their habits by driving less or buying more fuel-efficient vehicles while governments push to develop alternative energy sources. The result? More available oil and lower prices—at least for awhile.

Atkins points to a recent study by fellow University of Calgary economics professor John Boyce that challenges the legitimacy of peak-oil models and the economic calamity they predict.

Boyce argues that current models ignore important variables, such as the likelihood that energy substitutes will make tapping new, hard-to-reach oil reserves uneconomical long before oil supplies are at risk of being physically exhausted. “This is not to deny that oil production may eventually peak,” he writes. “But it does suggest that the peak-oil model has little, if anything, to say about that eventuality.”

It has been said that the world did not move beyond the Stone Age because of a shortage of stones, and that the same is likely true of oil. “From a practical perspective, what I expect will happen is that oil will become increasingly obsolete,” says Atkins. In the meantime, expect to continue paying more for the black gold than it’s actually worth.




Browse

An abundance of oil

  1. Just another reminder at how puny and insignificant man and his effect on the planet is in the grand scheme of things.

    • what? that's not what it says in the article at all…. Boyce is saying the only reason we won't suck the planet dry of oil is because we'll discover a different energy source that is more efficient.

    • This article is a brilliant example of how corporate media literally lies to you, afterall the corporations that control the media consider themselves the 'specialised class' whereas to them we are the 'bewildered herd'. This article is a very good example of how they misdirect us by literally lying. where are the examples backing up their claims? theres way more evidence from multiple sources to support the peak oil theory, the fact that this is way bigger than a 'recession' and the fact that the media literally lie to us. The one good thing about this article is that if you know a lot about the economic situation and read between the lines, it shows that the 'powers that be' are continuing to use fiat currency to try and recover the economy and continue an economic paradigm that assumes infinite growth, this is really not a good way to approach the problem.

    • But the US did hit peak production in 1970. Since then they (and us) have been relying more and more on imports from the Middle East, North Sea, what have you. Oil is a finite resource. Period. Earth is not replenishing what is tapped. We have a world population growing exponentially which will more and more quickly put strain on available supply and producton capacity. Makes sense to me that peak oil production is not question of if but when. We can't sustain this arrangement forever.

      • see the 20/20 flick above

        • Yes I have watched the 20/20 piece. What a load of b-s! Peak oil theorists have NEVER talked about RUNNING OUT. It is a question of when we have reached peak there is no more CHEAP oil and we have to spend an increasing amount to extract a reducing amount of energy, right to the point where you are almost expending as much energy to extract energy. Tar sands is a case in point – apart from being a filthy source of energy that will hugely increase greenhouse gases it will cost huge amounts of energy to extract the energy from them.
          Will never make economic sense.
          Do you REALLY think that with an increasing population demanding increasing ever greater amounts of oil (as does China and India) that finite resources can last forever. US oil did peak in 1970 and there are signs that global oil production has already peaked. If this has happened no new discoveries of oil are likely to come anywhere near Saudi quantities. All you have are quantities of low-quality, more expensive oil.
          Only a fool would say this is no going to have an effect on the economy.

      • Jack, did you even bother to watch the 20/20 piece? And please, try to avoid the ignorant exaggerations. The human population is not growing "exponentially."

        • Guy, either you're unaware of population growth or you're unaware of the exponential function. The global population very much IS growing exponentially. Go watch this video and educate yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
          It's a lecture all about the exponential function and its implications for humanity.

        • You clearly have no concept of what "exponential" is.

          Any percentage of growth maintained over an extended period of time produces an exponential curve, so by definition the population is growing exponentially.

        • It is not an exagerration. Have you never looked at historical graphs of human population?! More or less stable until about 1900 and then taking off through the roof. When I was growing up it was about 4 billion and now (35 years later) 6.5 billion.

    • dont think you understand the peak oil theory very well, the peak in oil consumption did happen in the 70s, look at the facts and statistics to back it up if you dont believe me.
      The point of the peak oil theory is that once the peak is reached, ( it's been proved that it has been reached already) then the only way oil supplies and therefore production can do is down. Therefore, oil production and supplys will now constantly be in decline.

  2. We're being ripped off! Where's my $0.50 a gallon gasoline? But, what if it COSTS more than $10 a barrel to produce all that oil? It's much more than that, if pumped from deep water from the Gulf of Mexico or extracted from Tar Sands. How much oil would OPEC produce at $10 a barrel? Can't the economists out there understand their own business models? I guess not…

    • It's not that economists can't understand their own business models it's that they're designed to be virtually incomprehensible to nearly everyone.

      Here in the UAE I know many people who work in the oil industry. After speaking to many of those people what is widely known here is that national oil companies extract a barrel of oil for approximately 1.47$ per barrel. Which to me goes to show that there's huge disconnect within a number of circles about nearly every aspect of the oil business because it's not made to be transparent. It seems to me that only those people within the oil companies really know what's happening and if it's putting food on your table or making you rich you're not too likely to talk about what's happening in the industry.

      • Sucking oil out of sand is a lot cheaper than sucking it out of deep ocean wells, extracting it from tar etc etc. Your would have a point if you had included those costs in your discussion.

    • If it costs more than $10 per bbl to extract and deliver, then it will not be extracted if the going price is only $10. If the going price is $70, then it will be extracted and delivered if the cost to producer is $10. Pretty simple.

      Cheap costs mean that oil gets sucked up and sold. Expensive costs mean that oil only gets sucked up and sold when the price is right.

      That is, unless governments jump in to "save" the oil sands industry with subsidies to keep an unprofitable business afloat, or some other such government-sponsored stupidity.

  3. Oil won't run out but it will glow in the dark after the coming middle east war.

  4. Wow, this in MacLeans in the same week as the leaked german military (Bundeswehr) report on peak oil.
    They conclude that Oil will peak between 2010 and 2013. That is has the potential to cause shifts in the global balance of power and the potential to cause partial or complete failure of markets economies.

    This is a lot to gamble with. Ideologies should not come into it.
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,151

    And to Quark1912: The only way peak oil "could never happen", is if there is an infinite supply of oil. Since the planet is finite it's as inevitable as the sun rising. You can question when and if it happens because there is a lack of oil or a decrease in demand, but "never" is just foolishness.

    • True say, multiple sources and evidence to back up what you're saying, shame theres too many 'zombies' that dont know what we know, all theyve got to do is read and not be influenced by corporate controlled media!!

  5. Oil in the US has already peaked – meaning, production is dropping every year despite price, has been for decades – and Canadian oil is mostly oilsands/tarsands. So caring here means stopping the earth-hurting production, and also suggesting that we get off of oil before the easy stuff in the rest of the world runs low too.

    That's the theory anyway.

    • Some are banking on oil shale production becoming commercially viable. The U.S. has oil shale as well as Canada.

  6. Oil will become obsolete before we run out of it. This is the nightmare of all OPEC members. Today the price of oil at the well has nothing to do with the price we pay at the pumps. If you don't like paying for your gas, make changes so you don't have to. Plenty of alternatives.

    • If the laternatives could provide the same level of convenience (and int he first world, a lot of it is convenience) at the same price we'd already be using them.

  7. there is a highly speculative part to the price of oil as the run up to $145 proved but it is still more expensive than $10. What the run up to $145 proved is that even if reserves of oil are actually declining, people will not continue to pay skyrocketing prices for oil, they will find alternatives or reduce consumption. The price curve doesn't go to infinity as the last barrel of oil is approaching. The price is a reflection of what people are willing to pay, not what it costs to produce.

  8. There is no resource on Earth that has an infinite supply so i dont understand how somebody could say there is no peak oil. Has somebody discovered an ever replenishing supply of oil reserves somewhere. Eventually the only option will be to use a substitute but petroleum products are used in practically everything, just not gasoline

  9. What strikes me about this story is the lack of data and context. It's like it was written for 12 year olds (maybe by 12 year olds).

    In the 1950's, a geologist by the name of M. King Hubbert predicted that in the US, conventional crude production would peak around 1970 (http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/). He was laughed at but he nailed it. Conventional crude production peaked around 1970 and didn't come back. And it won't come back. Hubbert's remarkable prediction was the basis of peak oil. The underlying science is sound.

    However (and there several howevers), extrapolating this to the world is fraught with difficulties. Political considerations and unexplored areas of the world make it almost impossible to get reliable reserve estimates. There are also unconventional hydrocarbon sources (tar sands, shale gas, methane hydrates, etc.) that have been or could be brought online. Price fluctuations are the result of market forces (including market manipulation) so they have proven to be a poor predicter of supply.

    But unless you believe in the theory of "abiotic oil" (which, as near as I can tell, is supported by wishful thinking, not science), oil is a finite resource. And although we won't ever run out, production will get slower and slower once the peak is reached.

  10. Peak oil will certainly happen, but its consequences are not as dire as some suggest because rising prices (and any rise driven by a slowly dwindling supply will be gradual) will make alternative sources of energy more economical. The Germans produced synthetic oil way back in World War II, there are mountains of coal to be mined, nuclear power is vastly under-utilized, Brazil has managed to become a biofuel mecca, and the technology underlying renewable sources like wind, solar or tide-power will improve over time.

    • I see 4 people have given this the thumbs down:

      Think in terms of the market, folks. If the oil supply dwindles, the price rises. As the price rises, other forms of energy are going to be cheaper. End result is energy is more expensive, but we end up finding other solutions.
      Is this probably going to result in a pretty big shift in how we do things over the long term? Yes.
      Is this probably going to have much of an impact on us in the short term? No.

      What hosertohoosier is saying is just a straightforward explanation of how markets work, that's it.

      • I wonder if it's not that "they" don't understand market mechanisms and all that, instead perhaps "they" just didn't like the nuclear power is vastly under-utilized part of hth's post.

        • That'd be really disappointing. While there's certainly room to debate about the costs and benefits of nuclear power, down votes are a really poor substitute for debate (especially when it is one worth having).

          • Disappointing but not too surprising. Why would that debate be any different than so many others.

            I'll agree with critics in the sense that nuclear isn't a panacea, but I do believe that most if not all the downsides are overstated. I'm open to reconsidering my support, but so far I haven't come across a "show-stopper", as they say.

            What's your biggest concern wrt nuclear? Anything at all?

          • Disposal is my main concern, followed by setup cost.

          • Yeah, disposal…

            Basically I'm not so worried about disposal. I had hopes that the disposal issue could be almost totally or even completely eliminated by developing techniques to reprocess/reclaim today's spent fuel (which does still contain a large portion of the initial theoretical energy) over and over until the residual energy (and radiation) was minimal.

            I used to think that that process would be fairly straightforward, but now I'm a little less optimistic – I'm sure that we will head down that road, and with quite a bit of success, but in the future, even after a century of perfecting those techniques I now believe that there will still be a not insignificant amount of waste that simply needs to be disposed of.

            Not to say that we can't manage that waste, because I'm sure we can, just that it would be ideal to develop a scheme that produce NO waste at all.

          • I can't speak to the science of disposal, but I can certainly speak to the politics of it:
            So long as nuclear power is run as a business, there's going to be a monetary incentive to cut corners on disposal if it saves money and I don't trust the current government to properly monitor things. This is especially true here in Alberta where the government's priority is very obviously to cater to the energy industry, often at the expense of local populations.

            I look at the current issues we have with waste and pollution in other forms of energy and I simply don't trust we could handle something like nuclear waste when we've so many issues with far more benign things.

          • Do your concerns about business cutting safety corners/lack of proper government monitoring extend to operation of the reactors themselves? If not, what makes operation different from taking care of the waste?

            Some proponents of nuclear power will tell you that the waste from some current energy industries: ie the mercury, radiation and particulate matter that can be found downstream of some (many?) of today's coal fired power plants isn't really all that benign at all! ;-)

      • It's also the idea that the free market can solve this without massive government intervention, that I'm sure some disapprove of.

        • That'd be pretty stupid. The free market can solve this without government intervention.

          Would it be the best possible solution? I really, really doubt it. It'd likely be much better if the government instead introduced incentives for energy markets to move in a new direction, but it isn't required for us to end up using other forms of energy in the end.

          • Agreed. It is pretty stupid.

      • Except that we've waited too long to develop those alternatives and will find ourselves in a very difficult situation.

    • But they don't get cheaper overall, they become cheaper relative to the energy supply which has just risen in price (although maybe some economies of scale and be realized in some instances. And maybe it fuels more exploration into new forms of energy. But that's already a really prized goal and it's not like anything promising is on the horizon, with time running out).

      It's a bit like saying sure silver getting so expensive most people who have relied on it in the past will have difficulty affording it, but doesn't gold look cheap now?)

  11. What a crock,, all the new technology developed over the last 2 decades has not been able to identify new reserves faster than the rate of reserve depletion, all while China and India adopt car culture and add over a million cars a month to the roads.

    The arguement in this post may as well been "Aliens will come save us" because its based on wishful think not real facts. Don't be dullards spend some time on the Oil Drum site and get real data before accepting this article writen by someone obviously shorting oil.

    If there was that much accessable oil out there who in their right mind would bother with tar sands at $60 barrel production costs and the total destruction of a entire provinces water shed?

    • and you have to use more oil (including transportation) to extract and process the actual amount you gain from the tar sands!!! doesnt make any sense to use an example of a retarded way to extract oil (seeing as you end up with less than you used to get it!!) to justify a claim that peak oil is a mith!! just shows how unbelievable this article is, anyone who believes whats in it is a mug!!

  12. "The current abundance of crude also suggests concerns about “peak oil”—the idea that global production is about to hit its zenith, sending prices skyrocketing and causing economies to crash—could be overblown."

    Kinda faulty logic to assume an abundance of crude would itself be a sign that peak oil is nothing to be concerned about or will not or has not happened. Of course there's an aundance of oil right now. We're producing more, globally, than at any other time in human history! The point is that the deposits of the Jurassic era, ie: Oil, natural gas, coal etc are a finite resource. We've come a long way from setting up a small well in Texas and watching it gush with little effort, relatively speaking. Now we're forced to drill thousands of feet into the ocean floor from rigs the size of small towns, scraping Alberta for tar, using an insane amount of freshwater to process the stuff. Doesn't anyone see where this is going?

    As for this supposed government push to develop alternate energy sources can someone tell me where this is to be found? More energy-efficient cars are not going to save us, Even electric cars require oil for constructing the body, rubber in the tires, the paint, the upholstry, all based on petrochemicals. Just check out how much is made from plastics and other petrochemicals and then tell me this is just a gas price issue.

    • Fair play to you, completely agree with everything you're saying, take it you've read some Mike Ruppert?!

  13. This article is another example of MSM ignorance. Take this quote:

    "As existing supplies dwindle, prices go up and oil companies are coaxed into spending more money on new exploration and new technologies to recover oil that was otherwise believed to be uneconomical. That was the case with Alberta's oil sands."

    Accessing oil that costs more, both in dollars and energy, to extract, is proof of peak oil not evidence against it. This article is a puff piece.

    BTW, in the 50s, Peak Oil was predicted for the United States in the 1970s. It came to pass.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

  14. It's not about Tim Hortons– it's just a symptom– it's about the global economic monster we've created.
    Let's avoid letting articles like this detract us from the big picture and monumental dismantling task ahead of us.

  15. I was on the bus the other day with a Republican who tried to convince me that there was more oil in the gulf of mexico than Saudi Arabia….. this is false. Canada has the next biggest reserve after the Saudis (Saudi Arabia has more oil than the rest of the world *combined*), and almost all of it is in the oil sands. The oil sands are way worse for the environment than Saudi oil, because it takes so much more energy to extract it.

    In Saudi Arabia, one barrel of energy will produce 20 barrels of oil
    In the oil sands one barrel of energy will only produce 5 barrels.

    So… i don't really understand what you're saying here.

  16. This is what happens when speculators with huge amounts of cash are allowed to meddle with commodities. The spike in oil prices was done solely to make some rich people even richer.

  17. It's not difficult to rethink 'peak oil' and see it as same old, same old, maybe even a good thing. We mostly left coal long before it ran out. It was inefficient as a fuel for transportation, also hard to extract, and dirty.
    The search is always on for better sources of power and materials, so, with good education, we shall see a process which has been going on for thousands of years continue for thousands more.

    What's a little frightening in this area of reflection is that there is no guarantee of success, no guarantee that we shall find better or alternate sources of power and materials.

    People do crave guarantees against the hazards of their fears, but only religion can supply that guarantee. Short of religion you have to educate and innovate and rely on good statistics to mitigate your fears.

  18. Of course there are no guarantees. The appearance of 'Peak oil' panic just says we need to do a better job of education, education about the reality of human existence. The truth is that, given you are educated, you will know the dangers and you have to face a life without guarantees. But given the statistics, in this case there is nothing riskier than usual going on in the human consumption. And 'Peak oil' is nothing compared to much riskier conditions faced by our ancestors. Now if education and innovation were to run out, that really would be reason to press the panic button.

    So get religion, or much better, get knowledge, either way, ignorant or wise, get hold of your primal fear. Learn to live with uncertainty, learn to manage it, live well despite the situation.

    There is no certainty except that we have to do our best with education and innovation. Get on with that, the rest will take care of itself.

  19. "Boyce argues that current models ignore important variables, such as the likelihood that energy substitutes will make tapping new, hard-to-reach oil reserves uneconomical long before oil supplies are at risk of being physically exhausted."
    If that's what this guy thinks then he has done very little research into peak oil models. Far from ignoring energy substitutes most peak oil theorists I have read go point by point through the substitute technology and prove their puny insignificance compared with the problem.
    The problem is not so much the technological alternatives, it is the lack of industrial capacity to change. The Hirsch report for the US Dept of Energy showed that if EVERY country on earth co-operated (an impossibility), went into a co-ordinated wartime-like level of industrial activity and focussed all resources on re-fitting the entire global industrial infrastructure to run on alternatives to oil, it would still take 20 years or more to achieve. The technological fix is loooong overdue, I know it will happen, we will move on, but the wars and human dieback, in combination with climate change, that occur meanwhile may overwhelm civilisation, it will certainly greatly reduce our capacity for technological development.
    Considering the right technology and new cheap oil deposits have been searched for since the US peaked in 71, and still not yet been found, is another nail in the coffin of the techno-fix solution.

    • Definitely. Completely agree!
      It's good to see a few people are talking sense and actually realise whats goin on, the reality of it and what it actually means!

  20. This is a nonsense article from start to finish. Supply is greater than ever before? We'll find new oil?

    Good grief, we've been finding less and less oil globally as time has passed. We've gone from a 50:1 energy return ratio to 6:1 in a century. The level of complexity of our society NEEDS a ratio of at least 4:1 to remain viable.

    The population is growing exponentially, by definition. Our use of oil is also growing exponentially with a doubling time of about 10 years. That means every 10 years we use more oil than has EVER BEEN USED.

    It's not rocket science, it's basic math.

    What I would love to know is what these geniuses think we're going to replace oil with exactly, because so far it seems we've got squat options.

    We've already hit peak uranium for pete's sake, peak coal, and the natural gas won't last long if we run out of oil.

    The only possible replacement I can see is fusion, and that's been "ten years away" for about 50 years now. LOL

  21. This article is one in a recent series of misleading media reports on the "end of peak oil". Look no further than the demands that China and India will be placing on the daily supply of oil over the coming decades. Should China's oil and energy consumption reach that of the United States on a per capita basis, they will require nearly 45% of today's world daily oil production. India consumes even less than China on a per capita basis so their ramp-up to increased consumption just to China's level (which is 1/5th of the United States) will prove to put even greater demands on supply.

    According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, world daily oil production has not increased in a statistically meaningful manner since 2004 despite huge efforts by industry. As a geoscientist who has been watching the supply – demand situation for the past 20 years, if we have not reached peak oil, we have, at the very best, reached peak cheap oil.

    To read more about China's oil demand, here's an article I posted in August about China's energy needs once it was announced that the country had surpassed the United States as the world's largest energy consumer:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2010/08/chin

  22. The core theme of your piece is factually incorrect: High prices did not bring on new supply after 2004. Since 2005, global crude oil production has been in plateau. 40 dollar oil, 140 dollar oil, 80 dollar oil, 35 dollar oil: it made no difference.

    You have written a puff piece. It's OK. I suspect you didn't care whether you got it right or wrong in the first place. However, I expect better from Maclean's.

    I'll now expect less.

    • true say,to add to what you're saying, the changing oil prices are due to what economists call the 'bumpy plateau' and eventually the price will continuously rise which will be when the oil supplies are running extremely low, the prices will increase drastically because they will be trying to destroy demand.

  23. We can argue about almost anything, except facts. They are after all, facts!

    As Gregor points out, oil production since 2004 has been flat. There is not even undulation as we have heard from some experts. Now we can argue about future production, but not about the past.

    In 2004, there were 3 camps. Ever increasing production up to 130 MB/day by 2030. Rising production until 2020 then a long plateau. Terminal decline beginning around 2011-12. No one is arguing number one any more. Economists still say number two (the problem is overblown!!). In 2004 I was in camp 3 and feel it is probably correct, with increasing supporting production history.

  24. "I can remember back in high school about 1967 that "peak oil" would happen by 1970 but it did not happen and will never happen," Quark.

    You are obviously referring to the prediction by M. King Hubbert that U.S. oil production would reach its peak in the early 1970s and then go into a prolonged decline. At the time he made the prediction based on a mathematical model of oil production curves he was roundly ridiculed by most established oil producers and geologists. However, he literally hit it on the head. As his model predicted, U.S. oil production peaked out in 1970-71, and it has never surpassed that historic point since. Indeed, we now must import more than 60% of the oil consumed in the U.S.. The mammoth discovery of Prudhoe Bay in northern Alaska was only a blip on the long term decline trend, and now it is also in rapidly accelerating decline.

  25. "Lloyds of London, the insurance market, is becoming rather worried indeed about the future of energy:

    “A supply crunch appears likely around 2013… given recent price experience, a spike in excess of $200 per barrel is not infeasible.”

    This is from Professor Paul Stevens at UK policy think tank, Chatham House, in a paper published in conjunction with Lloyds.

    Most predictions of supply-side problems choose either the 'supply crunch' or the ‘peak oil' camp — often due to the sometimes arbitrary distinction between those of an economic and those of a geological bent. This paper, however, says that both are risks…

    … The paper makes clear that Asia's growing appetite for oil could mean the ‘crunch' would come before the ‘peak', so to speak:

    “Even before we reach peak oil, we could witness an oil supply crunch because of increased Asian demand. Major new investment in energy takes 10 – 15 years from the initial investment to the first production, and to date we have not seen the amount of new projects that would supply the projected increase in demand.”"

    From: 'Peak oil vs supply crunch — or, both', Financial Times, July 12, 2010, http://goo.gl/d6yB

  26. Robert Hirsch, energy advisor and author of the 2005 US Dep't of Energy report on peak oil, on "What about the people that say, once the oil price is high enough, new and unconventional sources like tar sands in Canada can be used to produce oil?"

    "The point is directionally correct. The problem is that it takes a very long time to build the machinery that is necessary to exploit oil shale, oil sands, coal-to-liquids or heavy oil. In our 2005 analysis we looked at a worldwide crash program to bring these things into being as fast as possible. We made a number of aggressive assumptions, because a crash program is different from business as usual. But the problem is that the magnitude of oil production loss each year will be so large and the time required to implement these alternatives is so long that the problem runs away from you if we wait too long. And we have waited too long to seriously start. Eventually, these otions and energy efficiency will catch up. It is not as if the world is going to die. But right now, we are looking at a global recession that deepens each year for more than a decade because we are not prepared."
    http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/safe

  27. You have got to be kidding right? There is a small fraction of thruth about the discovery of new technolgy as well as people adjusting habits to not burn through oil that they consume, but all of that still does not mean we have or are very nearly about to hit peak oil.

    The problem is that coupled with the economy and the debt that countries are placing themselves in to keep this "farce" going is going to add up to an insurmountable problem when it is realised and then it will be alot of heart ache for all.

    Just remember, everything on our food table in the western world is attached to a hell of alot of oil energy to produce and deliver.

    watch and learn:
    http://www.chrismartenson.com/sites/all/themes/cm

  28. Also ask yourself why the oil companies are not really building any more new oil rigs in the sea to extract oil from these "massive supply wells"? its because they know there aint anymore oil to get. no real new discoveries that will sustain the population growth and demand.

    All the easy stuff to get is basically gone, and in a few short years I bet that will become quite evident. Especially when the "global economic recovery" starts to happen…..
    http://www.chrismartenson.com/sites/all/themes/cm

  29. we have waited too long to seriously start. Eventually, these otions and energy efficiency will catch up. It is not as if the world is going to die http://www.carlmontpharmacy.com . But right now, we are looking at a global recession that deepens each year for more than a decade because we are not prepared.”

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *