What, me worry about Peak Oil? And how do you get to be called a “science writer” at Reason?

Those were my top two thoughts after reading a two-month old essay on Peak Oil denial by Ronald Bailey, science writer for Reason, run on the Sunday op-ed section of The Dallas Morning Snooze.

Given that the real masthead slogan of Reason should be: “Where an irrational dedication to economic and social hyper-libertarianism trumps common sense, logic, empirical evidence and deductive reasoning,” I just don’t see how you can honestly be a science writer there.

But, this is also the magazine of people who stubbornly insist that economics, a social “science” with less logic, and less logical human behavior, than Freudian psychoanalysis, actually has logical actors and can be logically dissected.

So, let’s logically dissect it.

His essay isn’t worth the time for an in-depth refutation, so I’ll just touch on the highlights.

Cambridge Energy Research Associates, led by Daniel Yergin as its chief “no peak oil” fluffer, is cited as “probably the most respected private oil consultancy in the world.”

CERA "most respected"? Please, isn't this the CERA that's been predicting $40/bbl oil? It’s only most respected amongst the coterie of “no peak oil fluffers.

Next he cites the work of Michael Economides, who smokes enough Yergin crack cocaine to come up with a whopper line like this:

“I can produce 20 million barrels of oil in Saudi Arabia.”

Economides is a crank. The Saudis have already admitted Ghawar’s water cut has been increasing, although they don’t like to discuss a 30 percent water cut. And despite talking for two-three years or more about how they could up production to 12.5 million bbl/day, they haven't done it, have they? No. Maybe Economides can produce 20 million barrels of brine.

Economides is a crank again on making reference to 1976 U.S. oil production estimates for allegedly showing how wrong Peak Oil forecasters are. That was, of course, before deep-water drilling. And, speaking of deep-sea drilling, we’ve seen how rapidly British and Norwegian North Sea production is starting to fall off.

Also, Bailey well knows (if he’s actually a real science writer) that peak oil estimates of recoverable reserves allow for increasing prices making marginal recovery methods more viable. But, following up on his second reference to Economides, he pretends that Peak Oil projectors have always worked with static recovery models and therefore will always get it wrong.

Bailey then goes on to further discuss just how great he thinks domestic reserves are. Given Reason’s head in the sand on global warming in particular and environmental issues in general, I note Bailey’s current U.S. estimates don’t break out WHERE all of our supposedly vast domestic oil is at, i.e., ANWR, Santa Barbara coast, etc.

Then, he fails to mention, shockingly fails to mention, given Reason’s eco-libertarianism, the spate of oil company buyouts/mergers, and the reason they have happened — buying up reserves that the major oil companies know don't exist outside of buying up other companies. In other words, Big Oil, by its mergers, shows on the capitalist bottom line it knows the Peak is near.

But Bailey claims OPEC will do another 1980s self-inflicted wound if it, or individual members, brandishes “the oil weapon” again. (Journalistic cliché: weapons are always brandished.)

But, because of all of the above, there IS NO “oil weapon” to brandish. The only oil weapon OPEC members have had is an overstatement of reserves, as Matt Simmons has already pointed out.

That said, early or late peak, it is true that private companies don't have a lot of leverage on this issue. That’s the only bit of actual reason Bailey has in the entire article.