However, the media have done a lousy job of reporting on the end of cheap oil, of fully explaining to people why current high oil prices are neither the result of a conspiracy nor a sign that oil is about to “run out.” Part of the reason is that reporters are usually assigned to cover oil at the beginning of their careers and when they succeed they get promoted to another beat, so they don’t develop deep wells of knowledge and skepticism that could help them put “news” in context.

I’d like to make an appeal to cover oil the way we cover sports—as a personal, nutty opera with huge consequences for daily lives—as much for us as for those who live at the other end of the pipeline in places like Nigeria and Siberia. If you read the oil trade publications you get that scintillating play-by-play action, but the daily papers are not as ambitious.

Returning to Ed’s response, though the press has appeared to “cry wolf” about oil supplies several times over the last century, in fact it was reacting to current perceptions—declining U.S. oil discoveries in the 1920s and late 1930s, declining output in the 1970s and now. The alarm it generated elicited a reaction and new government and industry strategies that relieved the problem. Roosevelt’s cabinet saw that U.S. oil production would fall off and struck a deal with the Saudis that included policies that discriminated against U.S. oil producers and favored companies doing business abroad. That flood of imported oil intentionally delayed a decline in U.S. production. In the 1970s, another plan encouraging conservation and drilling in non-OPEC countries took shape, ultimately causing prices to fall and lulling Americans into a sense of security. This time around, reducing the impact of high oil prices on the U.S. economy while lowering greenhouse gas emissions will require gutsy political and economic leadership.

EW: Recently Goldman Sachs issued a note to investors suggesting that oil could hit $200 a barrel within two years. That same day, Tim Evans, an analyst with Citi, stated that oil prices could fall to $40 — because current supplies are “comfortable.” On April 24 the British Telegram reported Lehman Brothers’ statement that oil supplies are “growing faster than demand.” Further, we put 5.7 million more barrels of oil into reserves, up 32 million barrels since January 1, 2008.

Only Goldman Sachs’ frightening prediction made the headlines.
Also underreported is that Brazil’s Petrobras will be hiring 14,000 new geologists and oil-rig workers as part of their $112 billion expansion, which many believe will make Brazil the world’s second largest oil supplier. Totally ignored is Iraq: experts claim at least 115 billion “easily recoverable” barrels exist there and maybe much, much more.

Yes, the theory of Peak Oil is accurate; what’s under debate is how much oil the world started with. Cambridge Energy puts it at almost 5 trillion barrels; the United States Geological Survey estimates more than 4 trillion barrels — and since the start of the Oil Age, the world has extracted barely more than 1 trillion barrels. Peak Oil is years, maybe decades, from happening.

On the issue of long-term oil prices returning to $10 a barrel, we can all agree that that’s not likely to happen. However, media and public alike confuse Peak Oil with normal supply and demand problems; they always have and apparently always will.

Tomorrow’s debate question: What types of articles necessitate a mention of peak oil and which do not, and how do reporters tell the difference?

• 1
• 2