Energy Security

Misifus,

“I have not heard you ask any questions.”

I recall asking at least two direct questions, neither of which you have answered.
The first was several days ago, when I asked you to please identify which PO analysts you feel are Chicken Littles, and what they have said about “end of days.”
I provided a list of PO analysts whom I consider to be well-informed, sensible and credible: perhaps you could let us know why you feel that their research and their concerns are not credible.

The second was yesterday regarding the ongoing plateau of conventional oil, which you declined to answer (apparently because I’m too resistant to understand).
But I’m not your only audience here: I am willing to present sourced info (data & trends) which indicates that we appear to have a problem with our future supply of conventional oil.
SWC readers might be interested in your explanation as to why that info is incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick M

...In other words, we may in fact be maxing-out on conventional oil production.

---

All true. "May" being the operative word. My suspicion is that we probably are but I would also emphasize the word "conventional" -- we humans can be innovative when pushed. It's always prudent to look ahead but it's equally prudent to be aware that view will always be rather murky with few absolutes discernible... :confused:

Quote:

---

Re. military analysts, believing that our world faces a looming problem with its supply of liquid fuels can hardly be a popular/widely-supported position, including within the military...

---

Don't know, long retired but I strongly suspect that is OTOH pretty popular for a variety of reasons mostly involving job security... :wry:

Quote:

---

In some circles, PO is viewed as a cult, doomerism (even psychosis, etc) so one would think that there could be some risks in expressing support for PO concerns...However, that has not stopped several industry insiders from doing so, to their credit.

---

Certainly logical and probably true. Without more knowledge than I now possess on the topic, I'm inclined to 'know' there is a peak oil issue but to not know when it will occur. IIRC, there have been a number of predictions thus far and most have proven wrong -- that human innovation factor again, I think -- so I suppose we need to keep a weather eye cocked, be prepared as best we can and continue to explore alternatives without undue angst. :wry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick M

I recall asking at least two direct questions, neither of which you have answered.

[1]...which PO analysts you feel are Chicken Littles...


[2]...The second was yesterday regarding the ongoing plateau of conventional oil, which you declined to answer (apparently because I’m too resistant to understand)...

---

None of those are questions about the industry or the exploration and production process, which is where you need to start. Your questions were simply styled as questions to defend your Peak Oil psychosis.

You might want to start by learning about something as simple as drive mechanisms in petroleum reservoirs and then work your way up from there. Good luck to you!

Misifus, it's a common scientific (empirical) practice to look at outcomes in addition to models on what constitutes inputs.

It's thus totally legit to look at global output over time in search for clues. Then you can check whether the input model as it is explains the outcome and if it doesn't you need to look at additions to the inpout model (such as in this case a depletion of opportunities for "production").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Misifus, it's a common scientific (empirical) practice to look at outcomes in addition to models on what constitutes inputs.

It's thus totally legit to look at global output over time in search for clues. Then you can check whether the input model as it is explains the outcome and if it doesn't you need to look at additions to the inpout model (such as in this case a depletion of opportunities for "production").

---

Agreed. And since I am in the scientific & engineering community, I would know that.

I would add that after a macro observation is made, the the diligent researcher would start at the ground level to understand the processes and individual components that contribute to the observation BEFORE drawing conclusions and making bold assertions that "oil has peaked." Looking at graphs/tables and citing a few like minded individuals is not due diligent research, nor does it prove a theory.

The scientific way is not to demand conclusive evidence for a theory; it merely needs superficial plausibility and falsifiability (dunno if that's the correct word, I learned this stuff in German).

Incomplete information before drawing conclusions is utterly human. The scientific way isn't to outlaw this, but to insist that conclusions be expressed in potentially falsifiable statements - and then those who disagree go to work falsifying them.



Maybe you should rather look at how peak oil could be falsified instead of discussing some of practically endless input variables of this complex problem.


(The most obvious way of trying to falsify 'peak oil' is of course to just wait and see, but that's kinda useless if 'peak oil'ers were correct.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

...Maybe you should rather look at how peak oil could be falsified instead of discussing some of practically endless input variables of this complex problem...

---

No. Actually it is the Peak Oil'ers who should be doing that. It's called null hypothesis testing. Brought to us by Francis Bacon. Verstehen Sie?;) The Peak Oil'ers should have been doing this when they presented their "theory" so that it could be "proven."

However, you have given me an idea...

Their hypothesis rests on the quite self-evident limitation of total deposits.
This hypothesis can be proved wrong by future events.

The assumption that these deposits will last long is not scientifically superior or inferior to the hypothesis that they won't.

Scientific methodology has (in theory) no prejudice against non-mainstream hypothesises.


Besides; proving the other's hypothesis wrong equals proving one's hypothesis to be right in this case.

Rick M,

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you that you have convinced me that Peak Oil theory is valid - it's predictions. To make such an assertion on the global level that oil has peaked or plateau'd surely indicates a level of knowledge and skill beyond my understanding. Surely if this can be predicted on a global level, then it can be predicted on a smaller field level. So I am asking you to please make a similar prediction for me on a smaller level, since the smaller scope may help me understand better. When you do this, please make sure that you respect some of the terms like "under-investment" that have been talked about in this thread. Keep in mind that you are also bound by fiduciary responsibility to company shareholders, and to safety/environmental operating practices. Here is the information for you to make on when oil will peak (or even plateau) in this newly discovered oil field.

1. The field is in 7,000 ft of water. 100 miles offshore Louisiana in the "dead sea" (as was described upthread).

2. The reservoir where the oil lays is 14,000 ft deeper. For a total depth of about 21,000 ft. from reservoir to sea level.

3. Three exploration wells have been drilled by Exploration. They have declared that there are 1.2 billion barrels of oil in the reservoir based on the geologic structure from previous seismic data. These 3 wells are sitting on the seafloor, capped now and temporarily abandoned. They are awaiting to be hooked up with the further development of the field by the Production department. Of course there is no facility topsides (at sea level) and no pipelines have been laid yet. This of course will have to be considered as part of the investment to capture the reserves.

4. The thickness of the reservoir varies from 200-800 ft. as seen in the 3 well logs from the three wells.

5. The permeability of the rock which contains the oil is 120 millidarcies, seen from cores.

6. We don't have relative permeability data.

7. No PVT data yet, but we think that Petrosky's correlation applies with a Rsi of 600 scf/bbl, 31 API oil, and .69 gas gravity.

8. Porosity of the rock is .26

9. The initial water saturation of the rock is .15.

10. Initial pressure is about 15,600 psig.

11. We saw no gas cap while drilling.

12. We saw no aquifer while drilling.

13. The oil appears non-volatile.

14. While we think Petrosky's correlation applies for the PVT, we also think that the bubble point of the fluid is below 2,000 psig.

15. The reservoir appears to be faulted into three distinct units, each of which is hydraulically separated from the other.

Please predict when this oil will peak, or when it will come off of plateau. Keep in mind investment guidelines. The discount rate is 12%.

Thanks and looking forward to your guidance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

...The assumption that these deposits will last long is not scientifically superior or inferior to the hypothesis that they won't.

---

Sehr gut! You are correct. So the discussion then becomes similar to a hamster in his cage running on his exercise wheel in the wrong direction.

So let's see how our Peak Oil guru predicts peak oil with the data I have provided ;)

Misifus,
This exchange is getting more bizarre by the moment.

You know perfectly well that I am not capable of predicting when your hypothetical reservoir would peak or start to decline (partly because I do not understand many of the scientific details).
Furthermore, you also know that even if I did understand all those important elements, I still would not be able to predict with any precision because no-one can, including yourself.

Meanwhile, since this thread was started over two years ago, I have repeatedly said that I have no interest in attempting to predict the timing of peak nor in the predictions of others.
Nor do I agree with those who argue that the peak will occur when roughly half of the oil has been consumed.
For starters, there is the issue of definition. What are we talking about: peak of conventional? peak of all liquids? Could we include kerogen? Do we factor in net energy?

Meanwhile, returning to my two questions, you replied:
“None of those are questions about the industry or the exploration and production process….”
I provided the names of a dozen individuals, nine of whom are (or were) in the O&G industry, and all of whom have expressed concern about the future of oil supply.
Their concerns are increasingly supported by industry executive like Total’s de Margerie:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/02...ow-places.html

Surely such concerns are at the heart of the long-term viability of your industry, yet you see them as irrelevant and refuse to discuss them.

As for the relevance of exploration & production, we clearly cannot produce oil which we cannot find, and discovery rates peaked decades ago. If we consume more oil than we find, surely this is a problem.
One does not need to be a technical expert like yourself to understand that.

It would also be appreciated if you would make your points without distorting mine. I have never said that “oil has peaked,” rather, the reverse: all-liquids production is presently around 89 mbpd, an all-time high.
I do believe that conventional oil has probably peaked, but I certainly accept that anything is possible.
More discoveries like your hypothetical 1.2 billion would help: it would supply the world for an extra couple of weeks. At a depth of almost 4 miles, perhaps you could let us know how much of that 1.2 would actually be net energy.

I certainly agree with your most recent statement, “citing a few like minded individuals is not due diligent research….”
I think I’ve covered the literature as widely as an ordinary citizen could: from CERA and industry forecasts to documents from the EIA & IEA, to industry insiders like the nine professionals cited above, to the military analysts and emergency planners.
If you have published info, I’ll be happy to examine yours as well.

Hi again, Ken

I would also emphasize the word "conventional," though perhaps for a different reason.
Conventional oil has been the mainstay of global production for 150 years. We have added unconventional oil and natural gas liquids, but they are relative slivers compared to volume of conventional oil: it still provides the bulk of the 1,000 barrels per second that we consume (roughly 75/89 mbpd).
When conventional oil stalls, we will surely face an unprecedented problem.

I still fail to see why espousing PO concerns would be a popular one within military circles. I've sat in on several discussions with Canadian Forces analysts and I'd say that the debate is as vigorous within those circles as it is elsewhere: ie. a considerable divergence of views, which is entirely healthy.
That said, the written literature seems to be more unequivocal, with a near unanimity in favour of PO concerns.

You already know my views on prediction, and I certainly agree that we need to keep our 'weather eye' cocked. I think the North American public is largely unaware that PO is even a possibility in their lifetimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick M

You know perfectly well that I am not capable of predicting when your hypothetical reservoir would peak or start to decline (partly because I do not understand many of the scientific details).

---

Bingo! Which is why you may need to reconsider being a Peak Oil acolyte. And by the way, the reservoir is not hypothetical, it's one of many I have worked on around the world, this one actually being in the Gulf of Mexico, which is what some of you Peak Oil'ers referred to at one time as the Dead Sea (see upthread). How ironic, eh? Nevertheless, the admission that you are not capable of generating a production profile at least provides the audience here with a data point for them to consider when listening to your lectures.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, you also know that even if I did understand all those important elements, I still would not be able to predict with any precision because no-one can, including yourself.

---

Actually, you would be able to do it if I trained you (or if others trained you), and you would be surprised to see just how close these predictions can be made even with limited data this early in the development of a field. In fact we in the industry have to do this in order to decide how we are going to invest in and develop an oilfield and we also have to do this to calculate the investment economics, i.e., rate-of-return, profit-to-investment ratio, etc., for a given development/investment.

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, since this thread was started over two years ago, I have repeatedly said that I have no interest in attempting to predict the timing of peak nor in the predictions of others. Nor do I agree with those who argue that the peak will occur when roughly half of the oil has been consumed.
For starters, there is the issue of definition. What are we talking about: peak of conventional? peak of all liquids? Could we include kerogen? Do we factor in net energy?

---

I have actually read the whole thread and the references where your links were still active. Like most Chicken Little scams, the definitions change the more foolish Chicken Little looks. This is why Global Warming now likes to be called Climate Change. This is also why most Peak Oil'ers like to refrain now from making actual predictions as to the peak. The depletion of oil reservoirs should not be called Peak Oil simply because there is no predictable peak on a global basis, which is why I asked you to do it on a single reservoir. It can be done for reservoirs, then summed up globally, but that would leave out future discoveries, secondary, tertiary, recompletes, artificial lift, etc. One simply adds to the psychosis of an untrained audience/population by using terminology like Peak Oil. However, I do grant that the security of hydrocarbon supply in general and fuel supply in particular are of importance to the military.

Quote:

---

If we consume more oil than we find.

---

We cannot consume more than we find. We can only consume what we find. Have you considered that this plateau that you talk about and refer to as a glut, may just be a plateau because we are at steady-state? In other words, oil production is meeting the current industrial needs quite nicely. No one is out there crying right now that they must have more oil. What they are crying about is that they want it to be cheaper. They have been crying about wanting it cheaper since the advent of the automobile. And while I don't believe in inflation adjustment pricing, even you claimed that the stuff is pretty damn cheap today when inflation adjusted.

Quote:

---

It would also be appreciated if you would make your points without distorting mine. I have never said that “oil has peaked,” ...I do believe that conventional oil has probably peaked.

---

A contradiction in the same paragraph from you? Plus the references you cited say that Peak Oil applies to conventional oil. So has oil peaked or not?

Quote:

---

I certainly agree with your most recent statement, “citing a few like minded individuals is not due diligent research….” I think I’ve covered the literature as widely as an ordinary citizen could...

---

You cannot depend on the testimonials of others in order to be considered an "expert." You have to gain the expertise yourself and become an expert. Hence the exercise I gave you for the reservoir you believe to be fictitious.

As for the references you cited, I won't comment on them, not only because some of them are bunk (though the CERA stuff is somewhat okay) but also because I know some of the authors personally. I will however state that even within the source documents you cited, that Peak Oil is not seen as a valid theory, i.e., Hofmeister's comments (though I disagree with some of his views as well).

We can agree that oil & gas are indeed a finite resource. However, the fix on that does not reside within the Peak Oil community, nor does it reside with the alarms that Peak Oil raises which generally suggest some type of government intervention.

The somewhat funny thing for me is that I do not care the least about global warming or peak oil.
I think there are already enough motivations to switch towards sustainable energy technologies without such macro scenarios.


Crude oil is a carbon-hydrogen raw material that should best be used for material purposes (so far 10%), not energy purposes (90%...).
Crude oil and carbon-hydrogen substitutes (CTL and so-called "bio-fuels") are difficult to replace in some applications, of course (fuel for small aircraft, for example).

You said,

Quote:

---

you would be surprised to see just how close these predictions can be made even with limited data this early in the development of a field. In fact we in the industry have to do this in order to decide how we are going to invest in and develop an oilfield and we also have to do this to calculate the investment economics, i.e., rate-of-return, profit-to-investment ratio, etc., for a given development/investment.

---

Of course, but are you telling us that industry projections are never wrong?
BP's Thunderhorse is a classic example of industry hype and underwhelming results.
After vilifying Hubbert, American industry experts were stunned when his prediction proved correct re. US lower 48.
And I'm sure that the Brits never dreamt in the heady days of 1999 that they were in fact turning an irreversible corner.

You say that you have read this entire thread, including the active links.
Was there anything cited which you did not find credible? If so, please let us know what it was that you do not find plausible.

You say:

Quote:

---

The depletion of oil reservoirs should not be called Peak Oil simply because there is no predictable peak on a global basis....

---

So are you saying that PO is an invalid concern simply because we can't predict it? (I thought the inability to predict timing of peak was my argument, not yours... how dare you steal my argument... just joking!).

You say:

Quote:

---

We cannot consume more than we find. We can only consume what we find.

---

Actually, given the time-lag that Dayuhan correctly reminded us of, we can only consume what we found several years ago.

What we consume now (30+ billion barrels/yr) exceeds what we find minus the depletion rate on existing fields. That's a problem.

You said:

Quote:

---

..even you claimed that the stuff is pretty damn cheap today when inflation adjusted.

---

I did?

I fully support the statement, and cited LTC Fleming's excellent example of how oil is undervalued, but I don't recall saying so.

I did, however, point out the incorrectness of your claim that oil prices increased between 1987 and 1999 (inflation adjusted & otherwise).

You said:

Quote:

---

You cannot depend on the testimonials of others in order to be considered an "expert.

---

I have never claimed to be an expert in anything.

I have simply offered information which I believe is important & worthy of consideration, and which I believe is from credible sources (like the 12 PO analysts cited above, military analysts, etc).

You said:

Quote:

---

I know some of the [12] authors personally.

---

Then you are even better positioned to tell this audience why their analysis is incorrect. If they are the leading PO analysts, and you regard their viewpoint as a mental illness and a threat to your industry, why would you not expose their unfounded nonsense with detailed, sourced information? (Please add that to my list of questions.)

Again, I'd appreciate it if you would please stop distorting what I have said.
I think I've taken exceptional care not to distort your assertions.

RickM,

I see I am driving you over the edge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick M

Of course, but are you telling us that industry projections are never wrong?

---

I never said that. But listen carefully, the industry doesn't make Peak Oil predictions. Pundits make Peak Oil predictions.

Quote:

---

BP's Thunderhorse is a classic example of industry hype and underwhelming results.

---

Uh...you said BP. They have been considered a bastard in the industry for years. Poor management, poor leadership, yuppies at the helm. Nobody was surprised when they had the Macondo disaster. If it had to be any company, then it would have been BP. Nevertheless, you need to be the man in the arena. Thunderhorse is not "classic" it is atypical.

Quote:

---

After vilifying Hubbert, American industry experts were stunned when his prediction proved correct re. US lower 48.

---

I don't think anybody was stunned. Hmmm, but it looks like he was not correct after all. Eh?

Quote:

---

You say that you have read this entire thread, including the active links. Was there anything cited which you did not find credible? If so, please let us know what it was that you do not find plausible.

---

I already told you, most of it was not credible except that the CERA stuff was somewhat okay and the Hofmeister comments were somewhat okay. The historical stuff of most of the comments was accurate, but that is historical data. We can all read history. However, predicting what lies ahead is a different story. Why would I believe a man (like you) who indicates what lies ahead with regards to global petroleum production when that man can't make a prediction for just a single oil field? Especially when that man then says he didn't want to make a prediction anyway. I guess you just want to talk about the concept of running out of oil. That concept has been around since Drake's well. Anybody can talk "concepts." "Doing" is something quite different.

Quote:

---

So are you saying that PO is an invalid concern simply because we can't predict it?

---

Yes, and this is because PO'ers started out making predictions about...the peak. Then when the predictions didn't come true, they changed the date of the prediction. This is like the wackos who predict the end of the world, then when the date comes and the world doesn't end they pick another date. Others then just say that the world will end "someday", just like others then say we will run out oil "someday." Why try to intellectualize the obvious when you really don't want to?

Quote:

---

You say, "We cannot consume more than we find. We can only consume what we find." Actually, given the time-lag that Dayuhan correctly reminded us of, we can only consume what we found several years ago. What we consume now (30+ billion barrels/yr) exceeds what we find minus the depletion rate on existing fields. That's a problem.

---

Now you are being obtuse. Time lag is immaterial. There's no queue based on when a discovery was made as to when that oil is used. But since you wish to be silly, "We can only consume what we find or found." Happy now? What we can't do is consume what we haven't found, which is what you said earlier in your rush. This is because it isn't there to consume, simply because it hasn't been found...yet. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

You said, "even you claimed that the stuff is pretty damn cheap today when inflation adjusted." I did? I fully support the statement, and cited LTC Fleming's excellent example of how oil is undervalued, but I don't recall saying so. I did, however, point out the incorrectness of your claim that oil prices increased between 1987 and 1999 (inflation adjusted & otherwise).

---

Now you are being silly. You've implied it is cheap by agreement. And prices did increase in absolute dollars. The viewpoint depends on whether you believe inflation adjustments apply to oil. Do you believe inflation adjustments apply to oil?

Quote:

---

I have never claimed to be an expert in anything. I have simply offered information which I believe is important & worthy of consideration, and which I believe is from credible sources (like the 12 PO analysts cited above, military analysts, etc).

---

Okay, then you are a collator of information seeking to spread a hysteria.

Quote:

---

Then you are even better positioned to tell this audience why their analysis is incorrect. If they are the leading PO analysts, and you regard their viewpoint as a mental illness and a threat to your industry, why would you not expose their unfounded nonsense with detailed, sourced information?

---

Because in the world of oil their work is already discounted.

Quote:

---

Again, I'd appreciate it if you would please stop distorting what I have said. I think I've taken exceptional care not to distort your assertions.

---

Peak Oil itself is a distortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misifus

Actually, you would be able to do it if I trained you (or if others trained you), and you would be surprised to see just how close these predictions can be made even with limited data this early in the development of a field.

---

Hmmmm....who knew things were this simple? :wry:

Familiarizing oneself with the work of Newton, Darcy, Hubbert, Meinzer, Biot, Cooper, Jacob, Navier, Stokes, Gibbs, hydraulic gradients, temperature gradients, electrical gradients, chemical gradients, boundary-value problems, ordinary differential equations, partial differential equations, one dimensional modeling, two dimensional modeling, three dimensional modeling, workbreakdown structures, cost estimating (rough-order of magnitude, 80%? what?), project scheduling, performing geotechnical surveys, operating high powered workstations needed to run large finite element models overnight (or longer in energy exploration applications), assembling teams of highly educated & experienced folks so that they can generate (and compare/apply) proprietary data from many many investigations involving thousands and thousands of man hours of work, forecasting upfront costs for a decade or so of work...and I have not even touched the structural engineering concerns (costs, requirements, etc) which need to be addressed to successfully operate at those depths/pressures, temperatures, corrosive environments, etc, etc, etc...all of this is just overkill apparently for the always imprecise & inaccurate answers (relative to the absolute truth) which we engineers generate in this imperfect world!

From my money Musifis, neither you, nor Rick M, nor anyone else will ever have the final, definitive answer. Engineering, economics, demographics, biology, psychology, sociology, innovation, chaos, screwups, inshallah, and many, many other variables are always involved in the the equation...try 42, it's as good as anything.

And don't get me started on the whole calculate six significant figures (using flawed geotechnical, survey, etc, data), mark it with crayon in the dark, and cut it with a chainsaw while blindfolded execution process either...ok, ok, I will suspend my disbelief....post the new business model tutorial you-tube link which explains it all to the hoi polloi.... :rolleyes:

There are other ways to index the cost of oil. Rather than just doing compounding exercises (inflation adjustments). Relate the cost to common items that use petroleum products. Take cars for instance (gasoline) and homes (energy to heat and cool). Seems like oil/gasoline is actually quite affordable with respect to the principal products that use petroleum. You will find the same for items such as plastics, which also use oil, clothing, and a whole host of household products that you buy everyday.

The bottom line is that we are not really running out of oil in the doomsday fashion that Peak Oil'ers would like us to believe. While there are emotions at work when there are price spikes at the gas pump, the oil & gas industry continues to find and produce the oil & gas that you need and does so at an affordable price to the consumer. The average car has quadrupled in price over the last 30 years. While gasoline has only a little more than doubled, and a barrel of oil has less than doubled over that same time period. Don't forget that there has been an additional tax burden put on gasoline over the last 30 years in several installments. You pay this at the pump, and that is included in the price table below, none of which is passed to the oil company.

The average price of a home has about quadrupled. Again, oil has not.

In the US

Average price for a car in 1980 $7,210.
Average price for a car in 2010 $29,217.

Average price of a gallon of gas in 1980, $1.25.
Average price of a gallon of gas in 2010, $2.80.

Average price of a barrel of oil in 1980, $37.42.
Average price of a barrel of oil in 2010, $71.21.

Average price for a home in 1980 $76,400.
Average price for a home in 2010 $272,900.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surferbeetle

Hmmmm....who knew things were this simple? :wry:

---

Who said it was simple? Which is precisely why Peak Oil'ers need to be called on the carpet.

And as for your tone Surferbeetle, don't get me started blah, blah, blah, blah :wry:

Unlike some others, I don't post all over the place here at SWJ, nor do I grab something off of the web or wiki to make myself look informed. I only post on those subjects where I actually have expertise/experience which is exactly what I said when I signed up here last year.

Quote:

---

Average price of a barrel of oil in 1980, $37.42.
Average price of a barrel of oil in 2010, $71.21.

---

I recall gas being under 20 cents per gallon when I was a kid and it is over $4.00 a gallon now where I live. I also remember we thought the world as we knew it was over when gasoline first went over a dollar a gallon (we thought that was simply impossible at one time). Informed analysts from an investors stand point stated oil needed to remain over $70.00 per barrel to enable oil companies to profitably produce oil, especially since the cheap oil is getting harder to find, and now they have to drill deeper and used advanced extraction methods. Tends to make sense, and I haven't seen it drop below $70.00 in recent months/years for an extended period, so that does appear to be the current base or true value (without speculators).

As for peak oil, there are plenty of experts (and no I can't compare the creds of each expert, but it is fun to watch them debate on the business shows)who claim we're rapidly approaching it, but regardless the demand for oil is increasing rapidly based on the rise of the rest (India, China, and numerous others) and even minor interruptions in global supply have caused major panics among the economists, which tends to indicate that current production is barely meeting demand. When Bush senior was President I had to sit in a briefing presented by a couple of experts "in" the oil industry for about four hours. Have to admit I was impressed by their strategic view of the world and their grandiose plans for ensuring there would be sufficient oil for the next couple of decades, but after researching some of their proposals I noted very little of the production they planned for actually happened? I suspect more could be produced, but if major producers like Saudi are thinking strategically long term, I doubt they would want to produce more which in turn would drive down the price and two drain their fields quicker (whether in a few years, or a few decades). Why we're not producing more is a bit of mystery to me and can lead to a good conspiracies on price fixing.

As for oil being cheap (adjusted for inflation), well that may be the mantra in the oil industry, but the effect of recent prices on the lives of real people is quite significant and one of the key reasons for food inflation among other challenges for families and businesses. Where I live the power plants are fueled by oil, so you can imagine what the cost of electricity is. Oil is the life blood of any modern society (which everyone in this discussion understands well), and when the price of oil goes up so does the price of everything else, and with the additive pain of average wages decreasing the impact is further magnified.