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
