From Mr Barrie Bain.

Sir, I assume the reason the FT did not use the term "peak oil" (Letters September 21) is that it is a discredited concept. As an article and graphics in the FT last year (Over a Barrel, December 22) showed, there are more than adequate oil reserves that are economic at under $100 per barrel to meet foreseeable requirements, if oil sands and shale oil are included.

The high prices prior to the collapse in the second half of last year led to not only a massive increase in exploration, but also a quantum leap in seismic and drilling techniques. In the natural gas industry the US supply situation, which was considered dire just two years ago with plans for massive imports of liquefied natural gas, has been transformed by horizontal drilling techniques, which have opened up massive new gas fields.

Whilst the world's hydrocarbon reserves are ultimately finite, recoverable reserves are a moving target, determined by price and technology - two variables the doomsayers of the peak oil movement appear to ignore. Also, the effect on demand of pricing, particularly the impact of carbon taxes, which will artificially inflate hydrocarbon prices and encourage the development of alterative energy sources, needs to be taken into account when considering the overall oil supply/demand balance.

I suspect that in 2014 we will have other things to worry about than oil prices; for one we will still be paying off the massive debts incurred in the bail-out of the financial system. Maybe economists should develop a theory of "peak banks". That would be something to worry about (or celebrate).

Barrie Bain,
Fertecon,
Tunbridge Wells, Kent, UK