Hubert's Peak
by Erika McDonald
More than 50 years ago, King Hubert a geologist for Shell Oil Company posited his theory on the depletion of finite resources like fossil fuels. Now commonly known as Hubert's peak, his theory explains that production rates of oil and gas will increase to a peak and then rapidly taper off as reserves are depleted. The highlight of the a global Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston last week was a panel discussion on Hubert’s Peak. Panelists analyzed the international debate between “depletionists” who subscribe to more dire projections of decreasing reserves, and industry advocates who downplay the potential crisis.
Panelists considered a wide range of economic and geopolitical forces contributing to oil consumption, taking the discussion beyond the realm of simple supply and demand theory. According to Bob Williams, editor of Oil and Gas Journal, a more salient question than how soon the world’s oil reserves will run dry is how the public perceives the energy industry. Given its longstanding animosity toward the industry, Williams said it was no wonder that recent political events and concerns over global warming had the public clamoring for alternative energy and calling for conservation.
“By and large, the public doesn’t like you,” he told an audience of industry officials. “The best you can do is stay off of the radar screen by not spilling anything or being perceived as ripping off the public or investors.”
Williams said he thinks it is irrelevant if industry admits its activities are contributing to global warming. What is relevant, he argues, is that the connection between climate change and fossil fuel burning has becomes linked in public's mind. Similarly, he believes the changing face of terror, and now, with the Bush administration, the fact of preemptive war, have played a role in taking the call to end America's oil dependence out of radical political discussion and into the mainstream.
“The quest for alternative energy is not merely a campaign by a handful of activists; key nations in Europe have already embarked on such path and there is growing pressure within the United States, which consumes 25 percent of the world’s oil, to tread the same path,” Williams said. He described a $360 billion initiative proposed by a liberal think tank, the Apollo project that includes severe conservation measures and investment in renewable technology.
A major factor in the depletion of global resources is transportation related consumption. President of energy and economic research at the Michigan Institute of Technology Mike Lynch said, even though Americans are quick to demonize the industry for threatening national security and destroying the environment, they will keep going back to the pump no mater how much prices soar.
“The cost of gas is almost meaningless for most people and I don’t think price shock is enough to get people to conserve, he said. “it didn’t happen in the ’70s and its not going to happen today.”
The panelists agreed it would take more than price shock to overcome fundamental barriers to renewable technology including high costs and lack of infrastructure, like alternative fueling stations, and to make the necessary the culture shift off of car-centered transportation. Williams said that oil is still, and likely will be for the next decade, the cheapest way to bring energy to the developing world.
According to statistics from the World Energy Council 20 percent of the global population consumes 60 percent of the total energy supply while five billion people in developing countries consume the other 40 percent. The world’s two billion poorest use only .2 tons of oil equivalent per capita while the one billion richest use 5 TOE per capita extend. “Meeting the energy needs of the worlds poor is the first test of sustainability for the energy development path we collectively choose,” Williams said.
What percentage of that plan will come from fossil fuels and how much will come from renewables is where the dialogue breaks down. The problem, according to all the panelists was a lack of reliable data. They all believed that policymakers will craft responsible energy policy only when they have a clearer picture of just how many oil reserves are left. To that end, Bob Williams proposes a Global oil inventory initiative. He suggested that such an initiative should be governed by neutral energy focused organizations and scientific groups like the US Geological Survey and free of government control to “avoid the taint of political interests.”
All of the panelists agreed that, until a consensus based standard for such a global monitoring procedure is developed, the debate over how much oil is left in the world will continue as it has for years with no none knowing for sure just how far away Hubert’s peak really is even, as we near it.
