Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
OIL WILL LAST FOREVER AND IF IT DOESN'T NOBODY KNOWS WHEN IT WILL RUN OUT.
Jim Manzi, at the Corner:
This is pure emotionalism. Global warming doesn’t come close to threatening “a whole way of life”. Its expected impact is to make a much richer world 100 years from now ~3 percent poorer. Protecting ourselves against the outside risk of much worse effects mostly requires some prudent investments in fallback technologies as insurance. Crude oil production will reach a maximum at some point in the future. I don’t know when that will happen, and the record of those who have tried to forecast this not been very good over the past 70 years or so. When that happens, the price will probably rise. We will develop technological alternatives and find substitute fuels. (emphasis mine)
There's plenty to mock in this, but I wanted to look at the part in bold. As you probably know, in 1956 a geologist with Shell Oil named M. King Hubbert made a forecast that oil production in the United States would peak sometime in the late 1960s or early 70s. Oil production in the United States did peak in 1970, so it isn't really defensible to say that nobody knows when world oil production will peak. The only thing holding back a reasonable prediction, it would seem, is the reluctance of autocracies like Saudi Arabia to release accurate data about production, reserves and remaining supply.
Oh, and since oil now costs over $120 a barrel, does that mean oil has peaked, Jim? It never ceases to amaze me how willing people are to ignore the realities of simple arithmetic and lazily assume that technology will save us all. And no, I don't think the world is going to end because of high oil prices, but I don't think it can be denied either that the transition from the carbon-based economy is going to be a fundamental one.
--Mori Dinauer
COMMENTS (6)
T Boone Pickens also predicts Peak Oil pretty soon. As I recall, he's made a boatload of money by accurately predicting the oil market. When Jim Manzi makes 1% of what Pickens has made, I might listen to him.
Posted by: fostert | May 16, 2008 4:52 PM
What really drives me nuts about the "technology will save us" crowd is that they make this argument while arguing against funding to develop those kinds of technologies.
Ya know, if technology is going to save us, somebody damn well better be working on it, and it's clearly not the oil companies.
Posted by: MikeT | May 16, 2008 5:59 PM
If you want to understand the impact of supply limitations on the price of oil, you should correct for the weakening of the dollar.
Posted by: Ben Rosengart | May 16, 2008 6:32 PM
I can't come to Manzi's aid re: this post, but I did want to point out that today's he's the world's most sensible Cornerite thanks to this Libertarian-tinged, astonishingly level-headed reaction to the CA marriage decision. For which he is, predictably, being lambasted by his fellows. (apologies in advance if I've borked the link tagging...)
Posted by: rjt | May 16, 2008 7:05 PM
Mori said:
in 1956 a geologist with Shell Oil named M. King Hubbert made a forecast that oil production in the United States would peak sometime in the late 1960s or early 70s. Oil production in the United States did peak in 1970, so it isn't really defensible to say that nobody knows when world oil production will peak.
This is a false line of reasoning as the only reason for the "peak" is the continued obstruction by the Congress of new drilling. There is plenty of oil in ANWAR, the Eastern Gulf, the Shale fields and the upper Midwest.
Posted by: will | May 19, 2008 12:10 AM
I'd have more respect Mori Dinaue's argument if Mori had not changed the statement about the record of prediction not "very good" to "nobody knows when world oil production will peak." Given the multitude of predictions, the chance that someone's prediction will be correct is very high. The chance that consensus will converge on the correct prediction is another matter entirely. That is not "simple arithmetic" but simple probability. It is much easier to argue against someone when you misconstrue his or her statements.
I also find it amazing ironic that you denigrate Manzi with the description that he "lazily assume(s) that technology will save us all" when many greens "lazily" assume that green technology will easily be developed.
Posted by: Joe Edwards | May 19, 2008 9:37 AM