Comments on: National Review: We have an infinite supply of oil

By: The National Review Does It Again « Smash the Mirror

The National Review Does It Again « Smash the Mirror — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:54:50 +0000

[...] You may remember our coverage of the National Review’s stunning claim that there is an infinite supply of oil available for drilling. Now, they have outshined themselves in their coverage of the WaMu bank [...]

By: Brian Cesarotti

Brian Cesarotti — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:08:19 +0000

I’m just going to say, if you think your 28 year old is going to be very old before these issues get serious, you are mistaken. There is no doubt that this will get serious in the next 20 years, and its very possible that it could within 5 years.

By: geoffreyking

geoffreyking — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:15:24 +0000

I reckon Carson Park Ranger has hit the nail on the head. Even if we think of the next generation, my youngest child is 28 now so she’ll be a very old woman before exhaustion of oil supplies, global warming, and the rest of it, get really serious. So it’s easy to take the lazy option.
On the more general thrust of the article, I’d guess that National Review is mostly preaching to the choir; does it really matter what it says?

By: Carson Park Ranger

Carson Park Ranger — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:19:46 +0000

“…100 years from peak, 100 years from running out, or 100 years from when it suddenly becomes ‘finite’?”

Apparently, the so-called “conservatives” simply believe that they’ll be dead when things get ugly, so it’s not their concern.

By: Brian Cesarotti

Brian Cesarotti — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:30:28 +0000

Indeed, i think the Brazilians are having a hell of a time trying to tap into their newly discovered stuff thats under hundreds of feet of salt. Also, with the low grades, it’ll be hard to get production up high enough to really offset depletion of every other field

By: Rob Costa

Rob Costa — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:18:36 +0000

Being 100 years “away from it” isn’t exactly a good deal. While the antecedent is unclear (does he mean 100 years from peak, 100 years from running out, or 100 years from when it suddenly becomes “finite”?), there is a huge difference between 100 years and infinity. It was actually being kind to simplify his statement to infinity, because otherwise it is rather cryptic.

Responding to your comment, Rich, oil shale and oil in Siberia is not cheap to extract. It will be a factor, but remember we’ve already picked low-hanging fruits. The return to be had will largely depend on technological development, but so far, oil shale tends to produce darker oil than the usual light, sweet crude that makes our gasoline and is less viable than even liquefying coal. (some interesting, cited information on this topic is available on wikipedia, but it’s hard to get good estimates of returns).

Thanks for all the comments.
Rob

By: trzupek

trzupek — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:40:10 +0000

Of course what Kudlow actually said was: ” There is no finite supply, or if there is we are 100 years away from it.” as a way of illustrating the point that – given the size of the Bakken fields, fields on the continental shelves (see Brazil), the Siberian fields, ANWR, oil shale in Colorado, etc. there is no near-term shortage of supply – there is simply an unwillingness to tap into said supply.

Cheers,

Rich

By: Leroy Glinchy

Leroy Glinchy — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:38:07 +0000

Great, we should just drop all foreign oil. Now.

Relax all laws on drilling the in the US. The free market will magically do the rest. We dont’ have to worry about where it will come from, it will come.

Start an oil company today and get in on the ground floor.

By: goesdownbitter

goesdownbitter — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:37:48 +0000

http://goesdownbitter.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/peak-oil/

The supply is not infinite and certainly not in terms of accessible supplies. The days of poking a hole in the ground and striking a gusher are gone for good.