{"article":{"id":15325,"heading":"Peak Oil and the War: The Day the Signal Came","author":"anon","created":"2002-03-05 08:19:27","modified":"2005-08-15 00:54:33","last_modified":"Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:54:33","article":"

I'm not a thoroughgoing conspiracy theory buff, so this

shouldn't be taken as more than bemused speculation,

but it strikes me as eminently plausible somehow.

The problem is something called \"peak oil.\" It's something

that's been talked about off-and-on for years, but has

recently gotten new impetus from a book by a former Shell

Oil geologist and now Princeton professor named Kenneth

Deffeyes. He has written a book called _Hubbert's Peak:

The Impending World Oil Shortage_, based on the recent work

of two other geologists, Campbell and Laherrere. The crux

of the matter is no secret: oil is a limited resource. It

will eventually run out. The key is when and how fast.

Now, doomsday predictions about the issue have been made

often enough in the past and failed to pan out that

industry and public officials have long since adopted

a dismissive attitude. The old-time-religion goes as

follows: \"The market will signal producers when supply

becomes too scarce. Then, they will either develop new

sources, better means of extracting current sources, or

cheaper alternatives. Every time Malthusian predictions

have been made about resource depletion in the past, it's

all worked out in the end. So, don't worry, be happy,

and trust the market.\"

But now, there's a hitch. It all started back in 1959, when

geologist MK Hubbert observed that oil extraction becomes

progressively more costly, as the most easily exploited

supplies are tapped first. Given a good estimate of the

rate of development of new sources, and the size of readily

exploitable current sources, one can very reliably predict

the point at which oil production will peak. And from there

on out, one can expect an inexorable decline in production.

Even with improved methods of extraction and new finds in

more remote areas, the peak will be delayed but little.

Hubbert predicted the peak for US production to occur

in the year 1969. He was instantly dismissed as a

Cassandra. But, it became clear by the early 1970s that

Hubbert was right afterall. US oil production did in

fact peak in 1970, and has been in steady decline ever

since, notwithstanding the development of new fields in

the Arctic.

This is partly owing to the problem of \"net energy.\" The

trouble is, at some point, new oil finds will cease to

be either energetically or economically exploitable. More

sophisticated extraction methods tend also to be themselves

more energy-costly: deeper wells, offshore, under high

pressures, requiring more costly equipment, and so on,

all these things themselves eat up a lot of energy,

almost all of which also comes from oil. It \"takes

energy to get energy,\" to paraphrase the saying. The net

energy yield from new oil finds has steadily decreased,

despite advances in drilling technologies. In the 1950s,

the industry could produce 50 barrels for every barrel

spent in exploration, drilling, and extraction. By the

1990s, the ratio had fallen to just 5 to 1.

Now, the latest predictions indicate the breakeven point,

when exploiting new finds will be energetically useless,

to be in as little as 5 years. And, according to Deffeyes,

world production itself can be expected to peak around

2005-2010.

The interesting thing about the problem is that it hasn't

really occasioned all that much discussion, let alone

controversy, outside the upper echelons of industry

and government. The US Department of Energy's Energy

Information Agency (www.eia.doe.gov) publishes reports

that use the by now accepted Hubbert analysis together

with various different estimates of total exploitable

in-the-ground reserves. With different starting numbers

and different estimates of expected consumption rates, a

wide range of predictions is possible for the year of peak

oil production, after which the inexorable decline must

start. The dates range from as early as 2010 or so using

Campbell's estimate for outstanding current reserves, to

2112 using the most wildly optimistic scenarios considered

by the EIA (and using the most optimistic estimates of

world supply from the US Geological Survey). The most

probable outcomes distributed officially by the EIA

estimate about twenty to thirty years before the peak

(2020-2037).

Now, that seems a lot better than the gloomy results

of Campbell. Surely, 20-30 years is enough time for

industry to find alternatives. Well, maybe. But there's

still a problem. The existing petrochemical dependent

infrastructure cannot be changed overnight, even if

scientists tomorrow were to invent the perfect fusion

reactor, or some other such marvel. And the conversion

itself will take a lot of energy. So much so, in fact,

that if the planning doesn't start almost immediately,

and a rather large portion of the remaining cheap

fossil fuel supply rationed towards dedicated use in such

infrastructure conversion, there's a real probability that

the world will enter an energy bind that will be difficult

to escape for generations, if not forever, whatever

technological marvels exist in textbooks. The world's

economy will become \"energy limited.\" To understand what

that means, consider the American agriculture industry,

as but one example. US agriculture currently requires

about ten calories of fossil fuel energy to produce and

distribute just one calorie of food energy to consumers.

What about \"the market\" and its famous \"signals\"

and \"incentives\"? Well, the market will function

alright. But market signals and private sector planning

work on a timetable of about one fiscal year, not the

decades required to build an entire alternative energy

infrastructure. So, when the crunch hits, and demand

starts to permanently outstrip supply, the \"signals\" will

consist of many currently wellfed people starving. In

\"rich countries.\"

Ouch. There's just not enough time to do anything about it,

especially if you are a devotee of free market theology,

the current regnant US ideology.

Worse yet, it turns out that confidential new estimates

from DOE are much gloomier than the reports released for

happy public consumption. You'll only see these classified

reports firsthand if you are one of about a dozen people,

half of whom are on the National Security Counsel. It

turns out Campbell, Laherrere, Deffeyes, et al, were

right. Shit...

So all the King's horses and all his men, the most elite

circles of of business and government elites are troubled

by the new DOE reports. Dammit! There's just not enough

time to whip those pesky enviromeddlers into shape! Not

enough time to convince an infantile and unreliable

public with the attention span of a gnat of the gravity

of the situation, and the need to convert quickly to a

nuclear economy, and to damn well drill every last goddam

national park for the oil we will need in the meantime,

if need be. And besides, to even open the question for

debate might be to invite all kinds of disagreeable and

downright loathesome prospects. Even nationalization,

rationing, and government mandated efficiency standards

and conversion to renewable energy -- yuck! But the King,

his horses, and men, were in a bind, and there seemed to

be no way out. Unless...

Unless a miracle happened. So all the King's men confer

with all the king's \"loyal opposition.\" Democrat,

Republican, liberal, conservative. None of that matters

anymore when the whole kitty is at stake. \"Civilization

itself,\" they say. Everyone must be onboard. Of course,

hardly anyone knows what will happen. All they're told is,

\"A signal will come, and then you will know when the time

has come to serve your country.\" There can be no questions

asked. The key businessmen, Senators, Representatives, the

Leahys, the Kennedys, etc etc, and a select few reliable

and better known public celebrities have been debriefed

and given as much information as they need, but no more.

When the signal comes, it will be so powerful, no one's

allegiance to any individual or group will get in the way

of his or her doing the right thing. Hardly anyone knew

what the signal would be or exactly when it would come,

just that it would, and they'd know it instantly when it did.

And the signal came on September 11, 2001.

<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"Who was MK Hubbert? What is \"peak oil,\" how is it related to current events, and why should you care?","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2002\/03\/peak_oil_a.txt","filesize":"8.2 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2002\/03\/15325.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}