while some of us are like the passengers dancing the night away in the ship's ballroom, still believing the PR that the Titanic is guaranteed unsinkable, and therefore the run-in with the pesky iceberg will do no more than cause a slight delay in their arrival at New York.
Here's where the distinction between conventional and unconventional oil is important. More unconventional oil becomes unprofitable to produce as the price of oil falls; $80 is a commonly cited cutoff point for some of the big tar sands projects, for example. Sure enough, we've heard reports of tar sands projects and even refinery projects being shelved or delayed since oil plummeted below $100 a few months ago.
Now, remember that unconventional oil isn't just a tap that we can turn on and off. It's 'unconventional' precisely because it's logistically more difficult to produce than regular oil. Putting a bunch of oil derricks on the Oklahoma flatlands is peanuts compared to developing a multi-billion dollar, state-of-the-art deepwater project that can extract oil from below many thousands of feet of ocean and seabed, and requires a small army of highly-trained engineers and geologists to operate. Some of the big deep-sea projects can take from six to nine years from discovery to regular production.
So when these unconventional oil projects get shelved because prices are falling, they're not going to suddenly start producing oil immediately when prices go back up. Meanwhile, we keep drawing on the world's supply of conventional oil -- which pretty much everyone agrees is very near peak since discoveries of conventional oil peaked back in the 1960s. When demand does rise again and prices go up, there'll be that much less conventional oil available and the unconventional oil won't necessarily be there to step in right away.
Indeed, some commentators have said that peak oil will turn out to have been July 2008 at ~87 mbpd, for the simple reason that by the time the global economy demands more than 87 mbpd it'll be prohibitively expensive to deliver that much, and both demand and 'supply' (flow) will be forced back down. Thus,
The peak oil concept is more relevant than ever, because it warns us that the current low prices (that is, the oil supply glut) are only temporary.
http://postcarbon.org/peak_oil_still_relevant_more_everNow that the world’s credit markets are suffering the equivalent of a cardiac arrest, one can confidently say that the peak in global oil production is behind us. With demand for oil declining (because of global recession), OPEC will want to constrain production. With investment capital disappearing in a deflationary bonfire, oil companies will have difficulty financing new projects (even if they have full governmental go-ahead to drill, baby, drill). Thus even though the peak might have been delayed for another year or five if the credit crunch hadn’t intervened, that time cushion is now effectively gone.
This is not to say that Peak Oil should no longer to be considered to be of importance. In the larger, longer view of things, the energy decline will be the determining factor in the fate of our civilization—not a money or credit crisis.
When the world finally begins to recover from its financial turmoil (and this could take a few years), and oil demand picks back up again, the economy will bump up against oil supply constraints and petroleum prices will skyrocket, undermining the economic recovery.
Even though oil demand will have been constrained in the intervening years, depletion of existing fields will have continued, so that new production projects (when the industry finally gets around to financing them) will have that much more of a decline rate to offset.
http://postcarbon.org/say_goodbye_peak_oil