The problem with the peak oil arguement is that it is backward looking. It looks at decline rates of the existing major fields, applies them to current field production rates, and readily concludes that we are doomed because we could never replace such reserves and production rates as we've already had. While I agree that current prices are not going to be around for long, only as long as the global recession/depression plays out, there are sufficient proven reserves that will cap future prices until economic alternatives are developed. One of which I sincerley hope is not wind.

By looking backward peak oil theorists discount future technology advances. While the oil sands may currently only be profitable at around +$80/bbl, this does not mean that in 5 or 10 years time it will be that way. The worlds oils sands are thought to hold approx 3.6 trillion bbls, even if we ramp up the current consumption from 80million bbls/day to 200 million/day there are still enough reserves in the oil sands alone to provide for 18000 years if my maths is correct (all those emails about how much money 1 trillion really is finally come in handy!!!) This is not to mention newly discovered deep sea fields like the Brazilian giant Tupi that is though to hold another 33 billion bbls, that field allone will cater for current demand for the next 388 years. All that is needed is the right price/bbl to incent the development of extraction technologies. So while higher prices are needed to achieve this, the claim that production is in terminal decline is a stretch.

Perhaps the greatest evidence that this op-ed, along with most peak oil pieces, holds a certain amount of scare mongering by the uninformed is that noone in the oil industry holds this line. In fact, the writer even goes so far as to say that this is on no one's radar. With no offence intended, I see that the writer has experience at a retailer, a homebuilder, and a university...where is the experience? where is the inside knowledge that gives one faith that the writer really knows his stuff?

Last year there was no real supply problem, the run up in prices was sparked mainly by the fear that the Saudi's were reaching production capacity so any demand spike would result in a supply problem. This was actually counter to all the fundamental signals of the market at the time as with most bubbles, but quickly rising prices stoked the fears and buying begat buying.

The US consumer has indeed enjoyed low compartive petroleum taxes which has feuled their consumption, perhaps this will change when we need a price to reach the next teir of production, perhaps it wont, who knows what a government will think is wise when we reach that bridge. Until then, I, for one oil analyst, am not so concerned with long term availability, the path we take to get there is far more important or so I'm told.

This problem could be seriously exacerbated if the oil-producing countries decide to price oil in a currency (or basked of currencies) other than just the dollar. While we are depreciating our currency pouring money down the black holes that are the banks, we will paying more and more for oil.

Buy a Prius while they are cheap, plant a garden (if you still have a house) and prepare to hang around home a lot!

Thanks for this. We will only know its for real, when we look in the rear view mirror. And by then it's too late.

While conventional oil is expected to peak, as you say between 2005 and 2010, the total (with unconventional sources) will also peak between 2011, 2013, or 2015 (according to scientists).

High steadily rising oil prices lead to inflation, as we saw in food, transportation, etc. A better description would be nasty stagflation.

Suddenly rising oil prices can lead to deflation (see Steven Leeb), as the price rise is so rapidly that the economy is shocked, and pulls back.

A third possibility is an oscillation, where you get a series of inflation and deflation events. So weak growth with stagflation, then recession, then back to stagflation.

Funny thing is everyone is very concerned about global warming. I guess it is a sexier issue than limited energy supply, which could limit global warming.

A big savior of the suburbs could be the electric car, as it would make transportation via electricity cost effective. But air travel will be a problem.

Also why is Michele Obama planting a vegetable garden? It is to educate people on nutrition, or to get the idea going that growing your own food could save you a lot of money down the road.

Of course I give the "Berries" too much credit, as they were all surprised by debt crisis. But then again, Michelle is not a "Berry".

I would just add a couple of things.

I believe that oil prices will create a kind of giant game of whack-a-mole. Every time our economy tries to stick its head out of this recessionary hole oil prices will rise dramatically and whack it back down.

This is because of something that isn't widely discussed. When demand oustrips supply by, say, 10% the price of oil doesn't rise 10%. The price can easily rise 2 or 3 hundred percent!

Given our massive indebtedness and the effects of the coming baby boom retirement/death implosion I don't see how we get out of this hole for at least 20 to 30 years.

How do we, given our current circumstances, come up with 100 trillion dollars to rebuild the energy infrastructure and our cities. This can't be an 'inflated' 100 trillion either.

Fundamentally, there is only one solution. The American Way of Life has to change dramatically. It may not be politically pragmatic to say it but the standard of living in this country, for at least the next 30 years, has to basically be cut in half.

There is nothing wrong with pursuing alternative energy technologies but in the short run the answer is clear...we must have government mandated conservation policies! The public simply will not learn to do what's necessary on their own.

Instead of funding alternative energy schemes the government should instead use massive fossil fuel taxes to pay down our debt. The market should be allowed to pick the winners and the losers regarding future energy choices...as long as petroleum products are ruled out as an option. The government would have to provide some sort of fuel subsidy to the working poor in the short run but outside that the government shouldn't meddle.

There are no easy, painless solutions. Only realistic and unrealistic ones.

I say we roll up our collective sleeves and get busy addressing reality...with regard to our debt, economy, healthcare, education and energy.

Another interesting twist, argued by credible economists, is that this debt implosion happened at this particular time, because of the high oil prices. In effect because the sudden rise in oil prices pulled so much money out of peoples budgets, that it was the straw that broke the camels back.

An even more interesting economic discussion, is what will future growth be when resources are shifted away from oil over to natural gas (temporary fix), and other sources.
The key point, is there is no cheap alternative to oil yet developed, and as you point out it will take years to develop.

Also the inflation sparked by rising energy prices would be unstoppable. As I mentioned in a prior post, the FED may try to stop inflation as economic growth returns by raising interest rates, but if oil prices rise as you mention, then we will have inflation regardless. So the debt problem will take care of itself. Of course by "take care", I mean our standard of living will be further lowered. This is the wishbone turning into the double edged sword. First cut by the deflation and asset devaluation, then cut again if oil prices spark inflation.

M. King Hubbert pointed out that nuclear could satisfy the energy needs, but we would need to use breeder reactors, and develop thorium based reactors, as the supply of high grade uranium is limited.

Again this all goes back to the "Berries". If they took this seriously, then most of the stimulus money would go to building new nuclear reactors, improving electricity distribution, R&D into new nuclear reactors, solar, wind, biomass, improved low fertilizer farming, etc.

I think, just as with the debt bubble, the issue is so large, and the no one wants to make the hard choices to deal with the problem. We let the debt bubble grow over decades, as it was always easier to push the problem forward. The "business as usual" philosophy. This one could be the same.


Jenny now says "Let it go" Lets hope total oil production doesn't peak till 2015. But then again "hope" is not a viable strategy.

Excellent article and fine comments. Food for thought to promote action...

Dear James,

With the current economic conditions that looks more and more likely to become an economic depression, there are more dimensions to the other side of the equation:

1. consumer economy is dying
oil demand will decline. In fact at present, supertankers are going nowhere with the extreme lack of demand.

2. lack of demand -- preservation of the current wells
on one side, this will indeed cause supply problems as the economy picks up (a very long time from now). but from another angle, it kind of preserves the current oil wells because oil won't be mined as ferociously as before.

3. delays of oil exploration projects
on one side, indeed this will cause some supply problem. but on another side, it preserves the untapped sources.

What is your take on these issues?

I think the worldwide stimulus will kick start economies within the next year. The developing countries will continue to develop and grow their populations. People in India and China will continue to buy cars. Demand will rise even in a stagnant economy. Supply is in terminal decline. Prices will rise.

While I agree that when supplies are tight and prices are on the rise the tendency is to villify the oil majors I've got to say that I don't have much confidence in the rest of the piece when there appear to be so many factual inaccuracies. For example;

The majority of Mexico's production is attributed to the huge Cantarell oil field but author suggests the production eminates from just one well when in fact the field is produced from multiple wells spread out over a wide geographical area. And the nitrogen project is not just stacked on top of one well.

The statement is made that no serious exploration has been done in the Gulf of Mexico in 30 years!! Really! What in the world are we to think of the major finds such as Thunderhorse (now on line), Jack (Chevron), Perdido (Shell) and many hundreds more. Seismic activity is a relative constant in the OCS in the areas that have been made available to explorationists.

It totally exasperates me that statements are made as if factual in these Op-Ed pieces. People that don't know tend to believe this stuff. You should check on these things.

Just to have some fun with this.
Could the average household, with average annual car mileage, home heating oil use, electric, food costs, etc. construct a insulating insurance policy comprised of UGA for gasoline, UNG for natural gas, ect that reflect a percentage of exposure to each investment that would at least keep the average household neutral to the inflationary aspects of commodity cost and shortage?
Kind of like the next level of self insurance based on your expected level of future use.
How expensive could it be to build a small core of these off setting instruments that would keep a family even with inflation/shortage costs over the coming years with limited downside risk till inflation arrives?
Great article. Thanks

I've heard the wind energy concept for years. While there have been significant advances in turbine technology, there is a significant difficulty in getting the power to load centers. The reality is that getting new transmission lines built is only slightly less difficult than constructing a nuclear powerplant. There is no technical reason for this; the problem is regulatory.

As oil production in Mexico declines, will price increases make up the difference in revenue? If not this would be very bad news. More likely to become a failed state!

Also, never underestimate what politicians can do to muck thinks up, rationing, price controls, subsidies...

I am afraid I am expecting $25 oil far before $150 oil.

There is plenty of oil out there not to mention shale and liquid coal. How about those low radiation pebble bed reactors and cold fusion? PLenty of ways to create energy in the future. We will find better sources of energy through the capitalist system long before we ever run out of oil. Oil consumption will decrease and then become an artifact of the past. I hope I am still round to see it!

I think the "single well" example was used only for simplification. The rate of decay scenario is correctly stated.

Mexico is currently a net exporter of 2.2 million barrels per day, and falling. So with Cantarell losing approximately 1.5 million bbl/day of production between 2004 and 2012, that makes for a pretty significant loss to world oil supply.

If demand has fallen 3.5% and the price has fallen by two thirds, doesn't that give some credibility to the argument that there was more to oil's rise than supply and demand fundamentals?

Also, if demand is still relatively constant (a 3.5% drop is not really significant in the author's mind), then why did prices fall so much? If the supply and demand picture is really this dire, why is the market failing to recognize it?

If Mexico (and many other countries, OPEC, etc) are so reliant on oil revenues to keep their economies going, what happens when their oil runs out? Doesn't this again imply recession or depression as countries lose their main sources of revenue? Or does it in turn imply that these countries will have the world at their mercy with exploding prices?

Regarding "There is plenty of oil out there not to mention shale and liquid coal. How about those low radiation pebble bed reactors and cold fusion? PLenty of ways to create energy in the future. We will find better sources of energy through the capitalist system long before we "

There may be a glut right now, but when demand grows, thats when the problem occurs. Demand is an exponential growth function, and supply looks to have plateaued in conventional oil in 2005.

Shale: is hard to extract, and requires a bunch of energy. Of course unconventional oil may give us a little more time.

Liquid coal.: Yes Hitler ran his war machine on it. But again very expensive and takes a lot of time to build.

Pebble bed: We haven't built enough reactors, and we would need to build an incredible amount of new ones. Again time consuming and capital intensive

Cold fusion: So far has only produced a few neutrons in a test tube. May or may not pan out after decades of research.

All my opinion, but the point is there is no cheap substitute for liquid fuels that will be available in quantity for at least a decade. And that is the crux of the problem.
The scientists may argue over the exact date, but we are setting ourselves up for another crisis. This is similar to the debt crisis that was allowed to build up since 1982. Everyone knew the history of the Great Depression and what excess debt can do, but we still kept building the bubble.
Group think, combined with ideology, and lack of leadership. After all, why tackle a problem that is not immediately pressing? Remember "Deficits don't matter" (as long as everything is fine, and I can push the problem onto the next guy).

This is a great presentation of terribly important issues. I applaud the author's effort. The terminal decline in oil production will act as a governor on any economic recoveries, eventually, each time, undermining would-be growth.

Our fiat currency and debt-based economy are not well suited to our finite world. The Masters of the Universe (central bankers) have had a rough run for the last century, but now its really going to get complicated—we've reached a critical milestone in our finite planet. The debt-based ponzi scheme we've run for a century is showing terminal stress. To be blunt, those of us alive today have pissed away our own precious resources, and those we've “borrowed” from the next couple generations. Nothing has been more important to improved standards of living in the last century than cheap energy; since it has begun its terminal decline, nothing is more important to our future than replacing it.

Humanity has a long track record of innovation, giving hope to even cynics like me. But glib remarks that reference plenty of shale oil and tar sands ignore the central issue: conventional cheap oil production has peaked, and alternatives compare poorly on EROEI. Promising advances, by definition, must be favorable on this score.

That is somewhat dependent on what the supply limitation is. With supply reductions due to deliberate production cuts from what can be done at existing facilities, there will be some wiggle room when demand recovers, and prices won't spike immediately since some of that can be brought back online relatively quickly and cheaply. If/when demand exceeds the capability of existing facilities to produce supply then there would be a fundamental price spike since both the marginal cost and time-lag to meet the excessive demand would be enormous, and if/when theoretical production limits fall short of demand prices will really be off to the races.

And I must also add, why are we spending Trillions bailing out "zombie" or "vampire" banks, and on pork barrel spending, when we should be pouring Trillions into new energy infrastructure (investment)?

Answer: It is still business as usual in Washington.

I wish someone would really bend the Presidents ear, and tell him the truth.

Maybe the internet can help change policy.

The economy is likely to collapse since all the debt can't be repaid if the energy is removed from the system.

I recommend that you watch Preparing for a Post Peak Life:
www.postpeakliving.com

The editors cut out the part where I was referencing that Mexico has done minimal exploration in the Gulf of Mexico.

Let's not forget that the decline in Mexican production, particularly in that field, can be attributed to reservoir management, or lack thereof. It is one of the reasons Mexico is considering inviting non-Pemex companies into production sharing arrangements to boost production from the field. The reserves may still be there and the rate of decline arrested or flattened out.

Calling tops is a fool's game, for stocks as well as oil supply. Too many unstated and unprovable assumptions in this article. Peak oil was supposed to have already occurred, remember? Predict the end of the world often enough and sooner or later you'll be right - but I sure won't bet my money on it.

"Peak production will occur in 2000" said the famous Hubbert... GONG.

"In 2005" said Scientific American in 1998... GONG.

"Happened in 2008" said "The Oil Drum" last month http://www.inteldaily.com/news/154/ARTICLE/10096/2009-03-18.html (gong quivering in anticipation).

Well, we'll see. The prior estimates assumed steady or increasing demand, diminishing discoveries and production from existing known reserves. Except known reserves keep changing, as mentioned by a couple of earlier posts, and it is probably unreasonable to expect demand for oil itself to always increase.

Reminds me of the certainty of the eco-alarmists a few years back:

In the 1970s, "a major cooling of the planet" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950" (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the "cooling trend" could result in "a return to another ice age" (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" involving "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The "continued rapid cooling of the Earth" (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that "a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery" (International Wildlife, July 1975). "The world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age" (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of "ominous signs" that "the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down," meteorologists were "almost unanimous" that "the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century," perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, "The Cooling World," April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was "cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool," glaciers had "begun to advance" and "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).

My thanks to George Will (2/15/09) for the above summary.

"Peak production will occur in 2000" said the famous Hubbert... GONG.
<He predicted US oil peak in 1970-correct. The 2000 peak was pushed out due to the 1973 oil embargo, and the increased use of natural gas>

"In 2005" said Scientific American in 1998... GONG.
<So far conventional oil supply has plateaued at 86M barrels/day, since 2005>

"Happened in 2008" said "The Oil Drum" last month http://www.inteldaily.com/news/154/ARTIC LE/10096/2009-03-18.html (gong quivering in anticipation).
<O.K. there are many estimates, but key fact is they lie in a narrow band of 5-7 years. And that means the likelihood of a "surprise" is great, as it takes a decade to get off of liquid fuels. At least in Brazil they sucked it up. We have just relied on the industry to tell us what has been going on. This is not the smartest thing for governments or a country to do. Sounds a little like the banking industry, which is in good health?>

Well, we'll see. <Exactly, but the key point for me is that this is such a huge issue, and we are placing a large bet that the problem is way out in the future. And most scientists have said discoveries peaked in the 1960s.>

You forgot to thank George Will for being a pompous windbag, too.

Take a longer view on the world, and you'll see that there is one common problem which all species must face: where is their food coming from, and what condition is their immediate environment in that they will survive?

Regardless of all the blustering by people about data, there are some things that are obvious to the most casual observer:
1. A species must create more usefulness than it consumes, or it will go extinct.
2. Actions taken based on Blind Faith in ANYTHING will turn into something evil.
3. People are no smarter than yeast.
4. The vast majority of function of what we call "intelligence" is really just imagination, and imagination can rationalize any behavior after the fact to say, "I meant to do that."
5. Picking and choosing data to support your mode of denial is normal. Go with that.

"If demand has fallen 3.5% and the price has fallen by two thirds, doesn't that give some credibility to the argument that there was more to oil's rise than supply and demand fundamentals? "

NO!

Imagine this scenario:

You and I both need 50 gallons of gas to get to and from work each week. Let's say that total production of gas was 100 gallons. Let's say that at that rate of supply and demand gas sells for $2/gallon.

Now let's say production falls 10% or demand rises 10%. Either way now there is an imbalance. Imagine what happens.

If production falls to 90 gallons a week and we both still need 50 gallons to get to work we now start the bidding. How high are you willing to bid up the price to ensure you get the 50 gallons you need? I know if I don't show up to work 5 days a week I lose my job so I'm willing to bid up the price until the cost of the gas surpasses the value of keeping my job. In this scenario I will easily pay $5/gallon.

Imagine the guy who runs the factory...how high will he bid to access the amount of fuel he needs?

Now imagine this scenario played out for an entire country. Either supply has to be increased or gas will rise in price until demand decreases. If the cost of increasing the supply (say through shale extraction or deep sea exploration) goes up then the price of gas also rises which will have an effect on demand.

A small imbalance in supply and demand can result in a huge difference in the price of oil.

If you want the unedited version that addresses oil reserve fallacies, with graphs to support my article, please go to:

www.theburningplatform.com

I'm not trying to be difficult, but this post pretty much dismisses the original article, and although I can't claim any special expertise, I can argue with several of your points.

If I can summarize some of your arguments as I understand them, you claim peak oil theory is flawed because it looks backwards and therefore ignores improvements in technology that are sure to come. Further, you cite additional large conventional oil finds, implying more exploration will help mitigate depletion of existing fields. Finally, you extend the “improved technology” principle to non-conventional oil sources (tar sands; shale oil), suggesting there are centuries of supply.

I believe your first assertion is false. Hubbert's model most certainly examined decline rates of existing fields and is fundamentally historical. But this doesn't ignore improvements in technology. Continual and impressive improvements in technology have occurred since the industry began. And yet all oil fields follow a now-familiar pattern production curve, one that increases, peaks, and then declines. Hubbert's effort to aggregate the complex data and project future production curves worked fairly well, and has been improved upon since. Hubbert's theory was dismissed by his fellow geologists when he shared it in the mid 50s. Yet his prediction for peak total U.S. production was found to be remarkably accurate 2 decades later. Thus there is compelling empirical evidence that his approach to estimating aggregated peak production works. Importantly, 100 years of production data on which the theory now rests reflects mind-numbing advances in technology. The point is that conventional oil that is relatively cheap to produce has probably already peaked. If so, the production rate of that resource is in terminal decline.

Belief that new discoveries of conventional oil will overcome decline rates in existing fields is dubious. Deffeyes (Beyond Oil) provides relevant data and dismissed this argument as a red herring.

While money and focus no doubt will bring awesome technology improvements to production of non-conventional sources, these production efforts do and will, nevertheless, consume massive amounts of energy (not to mention water). The energy returned on energy invested is and will be lower (than present or historic conventional oil production). This is axiomatic. A magic solution to the energy required to produce the stuff would itself render its production unnecessary. So while it might be perfectly rational to claim non-conventional reserves are recoverable, I think it does a disservice to dismiss the themes discussed in Quinn's article.

I'm sure that Mr. Quinn would acknowledge he was a bit hyperbolic when he stated that the issues he raised were on no one's radar. But it is fair to say peak oil and the implications he identified are not widely discussed in the MSM. Likewise, I'm sure you would acknowledge that there are indeed some “in the oil industry” who do “hold this line”. Matt Simmons (on the finance side) has been screaming like his hair is on fire about this for some time, and Deffeyes provides a significant voice for Geologists.

how the global population implosion as the Baby Boomers pass onward to White Shores effect this? IE will it be sufficient to offset rising demand? And, if so, at what point?

Good questions. Seems likely that price bears only a partial relation to the demand/supply dynamics of the actual material, and a lot more to do with supply/demand of the futures contracts.

Many good points, and you correctly point out the difficulties inherent in the whole Peak Oil thesis.

Your math is off, though: 3.6 trillion (3.6 x 10e12) barrels divided by 200 million (200 x 10e6) bbl/day = 18000 DAYS, not years (it's 49.3 years). EIA estimates for "current" consumption: 85.1 million bbl/day. 2007 consumption was ~85.5 million bbl/day; "80 million bbl/day" was the 2005 figure. With Tupi, and assuming 200 million bbl/day, there's more than 490 years worth.

I'm curious about your hope that wind energy never becomes a significant alternative. Is this based on the aesthetics of wind farms (ugly, but not uglier than oilfields), the outrageous infrastructure required (the power lines)?

There may be 490 years worth of oil in the earth, but at what cost to extract it? If it takes more energy to extract the oil than the oil produces, then we are screwed.

Not on the radar? This is about 1/2 of my current radar.

The big driver in oil consumption will be the development of the undeveloped countries. This will happen even if world population is stagnant (and its not). China, Brazil and India will more than make up for any decline in N. America or Europe.

I don't doubt the peak oil theory, but this author seems to want things both ways. He claims Obama won't allow offshore drilling, and then says more drilling won't help. Speculators had nothing to do with the price going up, but then speculators ran as the price dropped to 76%. Truth is people did respond as expected when gas neared $5. The same will be true as oil supply drops. Alternatives like tar sands, oil shale, ethanol, etc will regain their economic viability. People will find alternatives, because demand can't exceed supply if prices are allowed to fluctuate freely. People will install their own natural gas filling systems, they'll buy higher mileage cars as either hybrids or all electric, they'll use more mass transit, and they'll move closer to their jobs. The answers are here today, but we need politicians to do what is right and not what is politically popular. Err, then again, maybe I should be worried.

If they found an ocean of oil under Texas tomorrow it would solve nothing. Oil scarcity is not the issue. The issue is approaching global climatological catastrophe. This planet has suffered runaway greenhouse events in the geologic past when all the coal and oil was still in the ground. Now trillions of tons of it are already in the atmosphere. The approaching greenhouse event is going to be very, very, VERY ugly with 6+ Bil people needing food, etc. We are murdering billions of people mere decades in the future with our refusal to face reality and act with urgency. Murder is murder. If you drive a large SUV and live a fuel guzzling lifestyle, show a little honesty and put on your Nazi armband. The era of excuses due to ignorance is over. It is now a moral issue.

Thanks, Jim, will do.

on your overall prognosis of our government's (former and current) lack of seriousness with respect to all things energy, on the consequences should we still have no alternatives when supply cannot keep up with demand, and on the attention span of the American Congress and the public ("shorter than that of a gnat" ROFL!! perfect!).

Thanks for the link to your site. Love your writing, and you clearly are sharp. Nice pic of you on the site, btw. If I was [oh my God, I'm not allowed to use the word G*Y on this site], you'd be hunted. That's a compliment not handed out lightly. [Really, this takes PC a bit far, Minyanville Editors. Since when is it uncouth to be g*y and carefree?]

We just disagree on when or if this will happen (running out of energy stock, not the other thing). Bubbles do not typically reflate so quickly as you intimate oil prices will do. I do not accept that $147 oil was a matter of supply/demand for oil, only for futures contracts for investment/speculation purposes. Will investor demand run the price up again? Sure, but not soon. And the bubble, once reflated (if due to investor demand and NOT due to demand for oil) will pop again. Just as it has done three times for nat gas over the last two decades.

We should have been on nat. gas powered cars 30 years ago. Hell, if Argentina can do it, why can't we? Pickens is right, you are right, I'm right, we should have everything going NOW, nuclear, solar, wind, nat gas etc. But your graphs are the same ones I see everywhere, and none of them account for Tupi off Brazil. None of these doomsday scenarios take into account that deepwater drilling is advancing, and most of that 33 TRILLION bbl will be available - your graph shows only 910x10e9 bbl for "future discoveries" but the Tupi alone is estimated at 33000x10e9 bbl. So...

Like I said. A lot of unprovable (except with time) assumptions in the Sky Is Falling camp. The sky was supposed to have already fallen. It didn't, and revised estimates of its imminent plunge become less believable each time they are issued. Could you be right? Certainly. Am I betting my money on it? Not.

People all over the world know the <a title="abercrombie and fitch" href="http://www.anfworld.com/" rel="dofollow"><strong>abercrombie and fitch</strong></a>,but not everyone really knows how fashion the abercrombie is,hollister is the Legend maker. Everybody wears the hollister clothing would be the abercrombie mensand the abercrombie womens, if you want know you can search the Ruehl No.925 or abercrombie outlet in the www.google.com .