I've dismayed some, distracted others from valuable studying, and worst of all: I made someone recall their college years! So, the other side of the Peak Oil story should be heard before others suffer the same fate.

First, the Peak Oil problem is not exactly the same as the running out of oil problem. In fact, some economists think that the fluctuations in the current oil plateau may not even be apparent as a peak-decline period until several years after this event has passed. Others speculate that some countries may have already peaked, but may still produce a new peak extending their limit. Kind of like those "too close to call" states from the last election, that everyone seemed to take such glee in calling hours in advance. Either way, some oil producing countries are still "too close to call" but could play a large role in predicting the peak.

Another important fact to remember is that Hubbert's model is a mathematical one and its predictions vary based on the current data which is fed into the model. This explains the movement of the predicted peak upwards and forwards in time. Hubbert did not originally predict non-conventional oil playing as large a role as it has recently. Whether this means that the model itself is inaccurate remains to be seen.

Finally, Hubbert makes two critical assumptions which allow the model to function as it has in the past. First, Hubbert assumes that geological constraints will limit production and discovery long before the ground simply "dries up." The other, more important assumption is this: Hubbert assumes that this constraint is the only constraint on increased production. This means that Hubbert does not consider deliberate conservation or market saturation as playing a part. What this means to the pessimistic peak prophet is that there is a distinct chance that deliberate conservation and market solutions may delay the onset or severity of the post-carbon world. In other words, those Prius hybrids might bump the peak a few years into the future and lessen dependence on fossil fuels as the squeeze gets tighter.

So where does this leave us, besides sitting on a mathematical model and a couple of rather broad assumptions? If Hubbert was right, does that mean one day we'll all wake up one day to find the pumps empty as oil starved zombies wander the streets in search of fuel for their inanimate suburban assault vehicles? Will bicycle gangs scour the land in the fashion of Mad Max? On the other hand, if Hubbert was wrong, are the pessimists really just crying out that the sky is falling when in fact forty years of oil remain just waiting to be found in some soon-to-be-homeless elk's stomping ground?

Neither case is likely. Though we can all complain about gas prices, the truth is that after adjustment for inflation, prices have actually been declining since the last spike in 1981. Recent spikes and climbs can be attributed to numerous causes, not least of which is the second gulf war.

In fact, if oil starts to become more scarce, the entire process will become more expensive. Fuel Oil is burned to "crack" crude oil into lighter hydrocarbons, tying the price cycle together. So as crude prices increase, so does the cost of refining crude. Bottled gas will likely increase in price, followed by automotive gas, then plane fuel, diesel, and the fuel in power plants. If such an impact is to occur, the effects on freight, and thus imported goods followed by power costs are likely to be more drastic than price increases at the pump. This is especially true considering U.S. internal controls in the form of changing taxes.

Wow. So much for fair and balanced, eh? I never was particularly good at giving the other side of an argument. If you'd like a real rebuttal to the Hubbert model, check this site out.

[/peakoil]permalink