KEY POINTS:
The basic premise of the peak oil theory seems unremarkable. Oil is a finite resource and therefore almost everyone agrees global oil production must reach a peak at some point, before going into decline.
The controversy arises over two questions: When will it happen? And what are the
consequences?
Professor Richard Heinberg claims to know the answers. He has produced four books and a DVD on the subject of oil depletion, and has given more than 300 public lectures all over the world. He was recently invited to New Zealand as a peak oil expert by (among others) the Green Party and Engineers for Social Responsibility.
In his books, he answers the when question on the basis of a modelling approach devised by oil geologist Dr Marion King Hubbert. In 1956, Hubbert used his approach to predict the 1970 peak of US oil production with remarkable accuracy. Using similar methods, contemporary peak oil theorists are now predicting a global peak in the first decade of this century.
In fact, Professor Heinberg believes that this event may have already happened. Production of conventional oil seems to have peaked in May 2005, he says, and all liquids including natural gas liquids, tar sands and even biofuels seem to have peaked in July 2006.
But apparent peaks in production have happened before. As Professor Heinberg himself points out, global oil production seemed to have conclusively peaked in 1979 before making a dramatic resurgence in 1984. Similarly erroneous claims for peak oil were made in 2000.
And, at a global level, Hubbert-type methods have repeatedly made false predictions forecasting peak oil to occur as early as 1989 (and in most years thereafter).
Part of the problem is that such predictions rely on an assessment of the amount of oil that can ultimately be taken from the entire globe. Although Professor Heinberg maintains that this is two trillion barrels by most estimates, some respected geologists have put the figure at nearly double this value. The US Geological Survey's mean estimate is over three trillion barrels.
Furthermore, Hubbert-type methods involve fitting equations to historical oil production data. In the comparatively unregulated US market this is fairly straightforward, but political and economic influences make it more problematic for the global situation.
These factors have led to criticism of the modelling methods of peak oil theorists. Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a US-based energy consultancy, is damning in its assessment, saying that peak oil theory is garbage. Highly-respected energy economist Michael Lynch has described peak oil theorists as practising pseudo-science and claims that: "The quantitative models used by peak oil theorists would earn a university student in elementary statistics a failing grade".
Lynch also questions the quality of peak oil research, noting that nearly all of it has been published on the internet rather than in peer-reviewed journals.
Professor Heinberg doesn't address such criticisms in his books. But, in person, he dismisses the arguments of peak oil critics.
He does, however, defend the publication record of peak oil theorists: "I would love to see a half-dozen articles on peak oil appear in Science or Nature but it's a difficult process, and with relatively few people working on the problem I can imagine that it would be a daunting challenge."
The dearth of peer-reviewed scientific work from the peak oil theorists is frustrating to the layperson trying to form an opinion on the subject - particularly when reputable organisations such as the US Department of Energy don't predict peak oil until after 2030. For some readers, this frustration will be compounded by Professor Heinberg's books, which, although packed with fascinating information, are astonishingly light on references.
His focus on generalist publications means that - surprisingly - his work has never appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals. Professor Heinberg explains the minimalist referencing in his books by saying that: "I didn't have rafts of graduate students to go out and look things up for me."
However, when it comes to the question of the consequences of peak oil, he is on much firmer ground. The economic effects of declining oil supply were clearly demonstrated during the 1970s oil shocks.
This was underlined by a 2005 report commissioned by the US Department of Energy (The Hirsch Report) which found that unless emergency efforts are begun more than a decade in advance of peaking, then the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. In this context, even the department's claim that we have at least two decades before peak oil is far from reassuring - although Professor Heinberg is dismissive of such predictions.
Whether you believe Professor Heinberg or the department it seems that tough times may be ahead. If peak oil is occurring right now, as he claims, we should be scared to death. And, even if peak oil isn't due for another two decades, we should probably still be terrified.
* David Haywood is a science writer based in Christchurch
