Page added on August 14, 2013
Peak oil — the point in time when global oil production peaks and begins to drop — has been looming on the horizon for decades. Countless research reports, government studies and oil industry analyses have tried to pin down the exact year when peak oil will occur, to no avail.
The stakes are undeniably high: Much of human civilization is now inextricably linked to a readily available supply of inexpensive oil and petroleum products. From heating, electricity production and transportation to cosmetics, medicines and plastic bags, modern life runs on oil.
Peak oil theory: The early years
In October 1973, the world was roiled by the OPEC oil embargo. Members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries agreed to stop exporting oil to the United States, much of Western Europe, Japan and several other nations.
Though the oil embargo only lasted five months (until March 1974), it sent shock waves throughout the industrialized world and underscored our utter dependence on petroleum. Many government leaders and academic institutions realized, even after the embargo ended, that the global oil economy couldn’t last forever.
Years earlier, in 1956, geologist M. King Hubbert at Shell Oil Company (and later at the U.S. Geological Survey) predicted that oil production in the lower 48 U.S. states would peak sometime around 1970.
Though his comments generated much controversy, he was later vindicated when institutions like the National Academy of Sciences and the Energy Information Agency (EIA) confirmed that his now-famous bell curve predicting the 1970 peak was correct, despite much rosier predictions made by industry and government analysts.
When Hubbert turned his sights to global oil production in 1974, his report was equally disturbing, especially in light of the OPEC oil embargo: He predicted that the world’s peak oil production would occur in 1995, assuming that current production and use trends continue.
In 1988, Hubbert said in an interview, “We are in a crisis in the evolution of human society. It’s unique to both human and geologic history. It has never happened before and it can’t possibly happen again. You can only use oil once.”
Does peak oil even exist?
Since Hubbert introduced the concept of peak oil, countless forecasters from every corner of the industrial, governmental and academic world have tried to substantiate or refute Hubbert’s prediction.
Geoscientist Kenneth S. Deffeyes, author of “When Oil Peaked” (Hill and Wang, 2010), asserted that peak oil happened on Thanksgiving Day 2005. Meanwhile, petroleum geologist Colin Campbell, a founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO), once estimated that peak oil had occurred around 2010, but his views have shifted somewhat as new data have become available.
The trouble is, determining when peak oil will occur, if it already has occurred, or if it will happen at all, are all dependent on an ever-changing set of assumptions and variables.
Foremost among these variables is technology and the role that it plays in oil and energy production. For example, hydraulic fracturing, aka fracking, has opened up numerous oil fields in areas that were once considered played out or too costly to develop.
As a result of expanded fracking production, places like North Dakota — home of the Bakken formation of oil-bearing shale rock — are now experiencing an oil boom, and are likely to shift the global energy picture in dramatic ways over the next decade, Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy analyst at Rice University in Houston, told NPR.
Jaffe estimates the United States and Canada could have more than 4 trillion barrels of oil available, which could greatly diminish the importance of oil-exporting (and politically unstable) regions like the Middle East.
Oil supply and oil demand
Demand for fossil fuels is another critical factor in the debate over peak oil. Developing countries like China, India and Brazil have become big markets for oil (and other fossil fuels such as coal). As these enormous markets expand — and as the global population continues to increase beyond the 7 billion mark — the demand for oil increases.
And as the demand for fossil fuels like oil increases, the supply of these resources dwindles, or so some have argued. But the amount of available oil is not uniform.
Oil industry analysts often describe oil resources in terms of conventional and unconventional oil. Conventional oil describes oil that’s available through more traditional, less expensive technologies like the oil wells that dot landscapes from West Texas to Saudi Arabia.
Unconventional oil, however, isn’t readily or cheaply available. Sources like the tar oil sands of Canada, shale oils from the Bakken formation, coal oil (liquefied fuel from coal) and biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel and other liquid fuels from plants like switchgrass) are expected to form an increasingly important resource in the 21st century.
Partly due to these unconventional oil sources, according to an August 2013 statement from the EIA, “Proved oil reserves … increased by 15 percent in 2011 to 29 billion barrels, marking the third consecutive annual increase and the highest volume of proved reserves since 1985.”
EIA administrator Adam Sieminski explained why: “Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing [fracking] in shale and other tight rock formations continued to increase oil and natural gas reserves,” Sieminski said. “Higher oil prices helped drive record increases in crude oil reserves.”
Costs and benefits of unconventional oil
Sieminski points out a crucial issue in what makes oil available — its cost. When the price of oil reaches a certain point, it becomes profitable to drill in areas and in ways that would not be profitable if oil were too cheap.
Deepwater drilling, for example, is an expensive and risky drilling procedure that usually takes place miles offshore in waters more than 500 feet (152 meters) deep. Roughly 80 percent of the oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico comes from deepwater wells, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The risks of deepwater drilling — and all unconventional oil development — were thrown into sharp relief in 2010, when BP’s Deepwater Horizon well exploded, killing 11 people and spilling an estimated 205 million gallons (776 million liters)of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It was the largest oil spill in U.S. history, eclipsing even the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989.
Despite the high costs and the risks, unconventional oil exploration and drilling makes sense when the price of oil is high — and according to energy consultants Wood Mackenzie, spending on deepwater drilling should grow from $43 billion in 2012 to $114 billion in 2022.
Thus, the amount of oil that’s available for refining isn’t fixed, even though the overall quantity of oil on Earth is finite.
A peak, or a plateau?
In a much-quoted (and much-criticized) report from 2006, Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) presented an analysis that found 3.74 trillion barrels of oil available — far more than the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by some earlier analyses.
Their research suggested that oil production won’t simply reach a peak, followed by a precipitous decline. Instead, “global production will eventually follow an ‘undulating plateau’ for one or more decades before declining slowly.”
From their research, CERA also determined that “the global production profile will not be a simple logistic or bell curve postulated by geologist M. King Hubbert, but it will be asymmetrical — with the slope of decline more gradual … it will be an undulating plateau that may well last for decades.”
Their analysis calls into question the very idea of “peak oil” as a useful model for energy forecasting or governmental policy: “The ‘peak oil’ theory causes confusion and can lead to inappropriate actions and turn attention away from the real issues,” CERA director Peter M. Jackson said. “Oil is too critical to the global economy to allow fear to replace careful analysis about the very real challenges with delivering liquid fuels to meet the needs of growing economies.”
Whether oil production peaks or plateaus, one underlying fact drives the issue: “World production of conventional oil will reach a maximum and decline thereafter,” according to a 2005 in-depth analysis co-authored by Robert L. Hirsch and commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy(widely referred to as “the Hirsch report”).
“Prediction of the peaking is extremely difficult because of geological complexities, measurement problems, pricing variations, demand elasticity, and political influences,” the report concludes. “Peaking will happen, but the timing is uncertain.”
Regardless of when or how oil production begins to decline, according to the Hirsch report, its effects will be global and will be accompanied by dramatic social, political, economic and environmental upheaval.
Mitigation of these effects — through conservation and development of alternative energy sources — will require advance planning and “an intense effort over decades,” according to the report. “There will be no quick fixes. Even crash [mitigation] programs will require more than a decade to yield substantial relief.”
The final word on peak oil may belong to Campbell, who was among the first to foresee its arrival: “The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stone, but because bronze and iron proved to be better substitutes,” he wrote in 2001. “Firewood gave way to coal; and coal to oil and gas, not because they ran out or went into short supply but because the substitutes were cheaper and more efficient. But now, oil production does reach a peak without sight of a preferred substitute.”
14 Comments on "What Is Peak Oil?"
GregT on Wed, 14th Aug 2013 11:17 pm
There could be hundreds of trillions of barrels of oil available. That is completely irrelevant. It is the rate of production, and the EROEI of the oil that matters.
“Regardless of when or how oil production begins to decline, according to the Hirsch report, its effects will be global and will be accompanied by dramatic social, political, economic and environmental upheaval.”
Looked outside of your cubicle lately?
LT on Wed, 14th Aug 2013 11:19 pm
“A peak or a plateau?” Irrelevant question. This is not basic geometry class. It is just a short cut to describe the phenomenon in oil production. That’s all. No magic about it.
To me:
A peak = a plateau = the duration of time in which oil production are highest compared to the rest of the curve.
As an example, one can say that the duration of time from 1969 to 1972 saw the highest in US oil production since 1859 to present day 2013. Such a statement is fair and accurate enough.
Peak oil debate is not like precision machining where one has to be so precise to +/- o.ooo1″ accuracy.
In short, one can call it “a peak”, or “a plateau”. It doesn’t matter as long as one understands the idea behind it.
Dave Thompson on Thu, 15th Aug 2013 12:12 am
We are entering a time of fracking,deep water, tar sands, non conventional production. What does that tell you?
BillT on Thu, 15th Aug 2013 1:43 am
We passed peak oil in 2005 or sooner.
To keep the charade up, the oil sector now calls anything that is liquid and burns,’oil’.
Wheeldog on Thu, 15th Aug 2013 4:48 am
The real question is, how much are we willing to spend on oil production. The question is more then rhetorical. Money spent on oil is money that must be subtracted from other economic pursuits. At some point the cost of production exceeds the benefits of the product.
DC on Thu, 15th Aug 2013 8:03 am
Jaffe estimates the United States and Canada could have more than 4 trillion barrels of oil available, which could greatly diminish the importance of oil-exporting (and politically unstable) regions like the Middle East.
No, we dont. Not even close. If we had even a fraction of that, wed all have oil-powered toasters and wed set fire to oil filled drums on the weekends just because we could.
And, the ME can thank most of that political instability on the US of War.
Arthur on Thu, 15th Aug 2013 9:24 am
“We passed peak oil in 2005 or sooner.”
This peak oil concept is flawed. What needs to be done is a Great Audit, where all the potential kWh from burning fossil fuel is added up and subtracted with the number of kWh necessary to dig these former kwh up in the first place. Anglophiles should be permitted to do this exercise in ‘British Thermal Units’ (BTU). We should not care too much about the question whether these kWh/BTU come from oil, gas, coal or ‘Canadian asphalt’. A kWh is a kWh.
Once we have established how many kWh/BTU there are left on our fossil savings account, we can begin to offset this figure to our present consumption pattern plus the energy investment necessary to setup a renewable energy base. Then it should be easy to calculate when we are going to hit the wall.
efsome on Thu, 15th Aug 2013 10:58 am
People love to mix ff liquids and oil to deny peak oil. Only reason oil cartels going for liquids is that theres not enough crude oil to satisfy world consumption. It seems to be barely working now, but what’ll happen when crude productions falls further? Call it a party or industrial age, its about to be over.
Jerry McManus on Thu, 15th Aug 2013 2:13 pm
Interesting article, but as usual the question of costs is not fully explored.
As with any claim of abundant resources there are two questions we must ask:
At what rate?
and At what cost?
The second question is actually three questions:
What economic cost?
What environmental cost?
and What cost in energy?
The latest news on the climate is very grim indeed, with the very real possibility of “near term extinction” entering the conversation for the first time, so the question of costs to the environment of burning fossil fuels of any persuasion is becoming critical.
GregT on Thu, 15th Aug 2013 4:35 pm
Jerry,
The question of costs to the environment, may have already passed the critical stage. We will know for sure, soon enough……..
GregT on Thu, 15th Aug 2013 5:02 pm
Arthur,
Could you please explain from the ground up, in full detail, how you would propose to setup a ‘renewable energy base’, how you believe that it would be able to self-replicate itself, and what we should do when it comes to the end of it’s useful life.
I would also be very interested in hearing your thoughts, on what you believe that the implications would be for modern industrial society, and exactly what you advocate that we use the energy for.
Arthur on Thu, 15th Aug 2013 8:40 pm
Greg, nothing earth shattering about that. Simply what is happening everywhere now, some countries quicker though than others.
Again a kwh is a kwh, regardless if produced by oil, gas, wind, solar or cow dung.
Start with a standard machine that can produce solar cells:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihEIaYsB4yg
These factories do NOT (necessarily) run on fossil fuel, they run on electricity from a wall socket. That electricity could be produced by solar cells that have left that very factory days earlier. It is like the baron Muenchhausen fairy tall about the man that pulls himself out of a swamp by his own hair, but in the case of renewable energy it is possible to draw oneself from the fossil fuel swamp. Necessary precondition of course is a EROEI value > 1.
“I would also be very interested in hearing your thoughts, on what you believe that the implications would be for modern industrial society, and exactly what you advocate that we use the energy for.”
In principal we can use that renewable energy for everything we use energy today. The point is that we are too late for full replacement of fossil fuel in time. We cannot produce solar panels and windturbines fast enough to compensate for the coming decline of fossil. There is going to be an energy production/consumption dip. Even with 10-20 years delay before peak fossil finally will arrive (I am currently guessing that peak fossil energy will be in ca. 2030, not 2018), we will not be in time to fully replace it. I am pretty confident that absent war and financial collapse (big if) at least the EU will achieve it’s target of 20% renewable by 2020 and 30% by 2030 (peak fossil energy). Btw lucky folk from Canada need to worry least with their hydro in relative abundance. After that it gets tricky, certainly on a global scale. The first ‘victim’ of the crunch is going to be the car, I do not see any future for that. For the rest it will be a proces of involuntary demand destruction. Heating will no longer be done by fossil but instead either thermowired clothing or local infrared beamers (above your bureau or comfortable TV chair)…
tinyurl . com/ot48okr
As said many times before, all communication, education, office work, buying, selling, any transaction really, will take place online. Moving humans only when strictly necessary, like production work.
Yes there is going to be drama om a global scale that could have been avoided if we had started the transition decades earlier. But in a century or so, things could pick up again, maybe for a civlization of 1-2 billion, since there is no real limit to energy supply relevant to us humans.
BillT on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 7:39 am
But, but… Arthur, there will be NO internet! Nor will there be most of the jobs now done on the PC. It will be manufacturing necessities only. And in a century, those who may survive will be farming or maybe hunting and gathering, not techies.
Arthur on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 8:37 am
“But, but… Arthur, there will be NO internet!”
They had telephone cables in 1880, long before the rise of the oil age:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone
There will be (glass fiber) cables after 2030, or whenever peak fossil will start, possibly/probably later. In fact the cables that are in the ground everywhere will at least last another 50 years. In 5-10 years time laptop/desktops will be phased out completely and everybody has a solar powered tablet of 11-13 inch.
I know that you planned the world to go under by the end of your lifetime, but that is not going to happen. I’ll give you the car, plane, dollar reserve currency and much of western savings plus Caliphate, unwinding of globalism, rerise of kolchoze/kibutz, balkanization plus rise of white ethnostate on North-American soil, but that is all I can do for you, sorry.lol
And hunting/gathering is a joke in the developed world. The only hunting that could happen is ethnic tribes against each other, like in Yugoslavia or Iraq.