<http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA562.htm
>
from which...
Like earlier concerns about oil depletion, the current panic has little basis in the geology of oil. The argument that we are about to run out of oil has been around for as long as oil has been produced. But the depletion argument becomes popular at different times for different reasons. The last time oil depletion became a major concern was during the OPEC boycott of 1973/4, and carried on through the recession of the early 1980s. From the mid-1980s, concerns about global warming took over - and instead of worrying that we had too little oil many fretted that we had too much. Burning all that oil would disrupt the climate, they argued, by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
[...]
======================
Spiked Online is sometimes an interesting publication but it's fallen prey to what you might call 'one idea-ism'. You know what this is – the belief there's one really clever idea that explains everything.
In Spiked's case, the one-idea (or 'idee fixe' for the fancy-pants in the house) is that the West is obsessed with risk; quivering with fear in the face of things it shouldn’t be concerned with.
In fact, there was a whole series on this topic. See –
http://www.spiked-online.com/panicattack/
So now they’ve turned their listen-don’t-worry spotlight on the subject of petroleum or, more precisely, the question of how long petroleum will be available.
I won’t pretend to be a peak oil theory expert but it’s a safe bet nothing lasts forever so the petroleum scarcity argument ultimately has time on its side even if some of its boosters have gotten ahead of themselves.
But, closer to the mark, the Spiked author’s counter-argument is, in an ironic way, flawed since his response to peak oil’s model of insufficient supply for the depth of demand is to say there’s more than enough oil and demand won’t be a problem. Hardly original.
This is pretty much the key point from the article:
The pessimists' claim that we know how much oil is left because known reserves amount to 90 per cent of all that will be discovered is also unduly catastrophist. It is a result of one-sidedly highlighting only bad news. For example, while it is probably correct that many figures for known reserves in the Middle East are politically inflated, it is also the case that, because known reserves are large enough for the foreseeable future and as a result of war and political instability, there has been little serious exploration in the Middle East for over 20 years.
…
Well maybe, but other than Mr. Kaplinsky’s sunny assurances the situation is manageable, we really have no good reason to simply sit back comfortably and assume that “the pessimists” are entirely wrong.
The vast pool of undiscovered oil he depends upon exists, right now, only as words on paper and monitors. How do we know the belief that 90 percent of all reserves have been discovered is “unduly catastrophist”? It’s not “pessimists” alone who say this but many oil industry geologists.
I’m sure effective (or at least credible) counter-arguments to the peak oil theory exist but this Spiked article is surely not it.
.d.