I’m constantly bemused by your claims that I’m trying to suppress your views in some way. First you implied that I was trying to say you "shouldn’t be allowed to mention that the debate’s occurring". Now you’re implying that I’ve said you "shouldn’t be allowed to criticise the sayings of an expert like [me]".

I have no idea where you get those ideas from. I’m just trying to tell you that from the point of view of someone who has studied the subject for seven years and had discussions (both via email and in person) with some of the most respected people in the field (with 100s of years of combined experience) that there is now a consensus that we are going to hit crude oil shortages, because of production peaking, as early as next summer but no later than 2015.

I understand that since your grandmother’s time and before people have been saying the sky was going to fall in. I understand that past predictions about oil shortages have proven to be false. But that’s wholly irrelevant in the face of the empirical data emerging from oil fields all over the world.

The other issue with the Boy Who Cried Wolf, of course, is that the townspeople lost their food supply because they’d become too jaded to judge each warning on its merits. Understandable perhaps, but ultimately self-destructive.

Also, I do have a little bit of a problem with unreferenced stuff. I’m more than happy to provide a reference for anything I cite here. Could you please refer me to at least some of these specific predictions about oil that you mention. Telling me to google Ehrlich isn’t enough; please point me to a prediction he made about crude oil. Or anyone else post-1971 in fact.

I say this, because there has been a lot of guff written about false predictions. In the past I have had this very discussion with a certain Mr. David Duff who constantly referred to The Club of Rome and the "false predictions" made in The Limits To Growth.

Now, having had a very entertaining email exchange with one of the authors of that book, and having read it several times, what strikes me is how few actual predictions are made in it, how heavily qualified they are, and how none of them can be possibly described as "wrong" because they relate to timespans not yet complete.

That so many people point to the graphs which represent different models, choose the "worst case" model, and shout about how "it’s wrong!!!" merely demonstrates how few people understand statistical analysis or complex-systems-modelling.

I know you never mentioned The Limits to Growth, Squander Two, but as you haven’t given me anything specific to go on, I’m having to assume which "false predictions" you’re talking about.

Interestingly, The Limits to Growth deliberately avoids discussing crude oil in any depth (for a bunch of reasons). Indeed the only possible item in the entire book that could be described as a prediction about crude oil is the table on Page 58 (UK Pan print, 6th edition) which predicts a depletion of crude oil reserves in 50 years based upon exponential growth in its usage.

What’s interesting about this table, is that it’s pure mathematics. It takes current known proven reserves (at the time of the study), multiplies them by 5 (to take into account probable reserves and future discovery), takes current consumption, increases it exponentially, and works out the end date. It’s non-controversial. A more complex calculation, but no less mathematically certain than 2+2=4. And it’s not a prediction of what "will" happen, but what "would" happen under those specific conditions.

The oil embargo of the early 70s, of course, dramatically affected the shape of the production and consumption curve. It prevented anything like an exponential increase in oil consumption. [Aside: Hubbert’s prediction for global peak actually points to the mid-90s if you exclude the impact of the embargo]

Another thing:
>
> You claim that Hubbert curve analysis is
> consistently accurate at telling you where
> to drill for oil.
>
No I didn’t. And if I even implied that anywhere, I was completely wrong. Hubbert curves are predictors of production from a specific reservoir (or averaged over many) based upon initial discovery date(s).

It is a totally different field to oil exploration. Nothing whatsoever to do with it. Apologies if I’ve been inadvertently confusing about that.

My point about current exploration is a separate one, but an important one. If oil were abiotic in origin then near-surface geology would have no impact on where it would be discovered. Near-surface geology is only relevant if you claim that oil is a fossil fuel (i.e. formed by organic matter being trapped within unique geological structures close to the surface). If you’re interested in the more mainstream view of how oil is formed, this is a fairly accessible presentation by Colin Campbell.

When people began drilling oil wells (back in the late 19th century) it was a relatively hit and miss affair. Because oil fields are pretty big things, you could usually up your chances by drilling close to someone else who had hit oil. But there wasn’t much else to decrease the odds of a dry well. Then, in the 50s there were some advances in seismic imaging technology and a rush to find out whether there was a commonality in the geology of oil-fields. As the technology improved, so elements of surface geology were discovered, without which oil was never present.

Immediately the rate of discovery jumped, and it peaked in the late 1960s since when it has been steadily declining. By the late 70s most of the planet (Antarctica and a few smaller places excluded) had been subjected to detailed seismic imaging. There is very little more to be found. The South China Seas may hold a large field or two. Certainly the geology points towards it, and there are a whole bunch of nations engaged in a frantic naval arms race in the area in order to secure the rights to drill, by force if necessary.

If oil were abiotic in origin, we wouldn’t have had a jump in discovery when better surface analysis became available. We would never hit a peak in discovery (to deny that we have is to claim a massive conspiracy). And Hubbert analysis would never work (because fields filling from below would have an entirely different depletion curve… mathematically speaking).

I was amused by your line regarding past predictions:
>
> and there wasn’t a chorus of voices from
> petrogeologists telling the public to
> ignore them
>
Petrogeologists tend not to be listened to. When Hubbert made his prediction in the 50s, the only people who heard about it were other petrogeologists. And they did heavily criticise him (the prevailing view at the time was, oddly enough, that oil was seeping upwards from deeper and that 1970 was ludicrously early to expect a production peak). However you’d have to dig out some pretty esoteric journals to discover any evidence that this debate was even happening back then.

Hubbert’s name didn’t become well known outside the field (he was justly renowned for other work) until his prediction had been proven correct.

The petrogeology community has always been extremely conservative. When a maverick starts to make wild predictions they are always criticised by the rest of the field. Always. The fact that the wild maverick is widely publicised and remembered, but the dull safe voices of the establishment are ignored and forgotten is not perhaps the fault of the petrogeologists… but rather of a public who choose to trumpet sensationalism rather than actually learn something about an issue.

So when you allege:
>
> But, as long as your industry’s predictions of
> worldwide shortages fail to come true…
>
Please ,please, please provide one single occasion when the industry has made any such prediction. Just one. It never has, Squander Two. In fact it’s always been wildly optimistic about future prospects. Investors demand that.

Oh, and it’s not "my" industry. I quit the corporate life seven years ago (I was an engineer working in complex-systems analysis) to focus on petrogeology and peak oil from an academic / political aspect. I am not affiliated with the oil industry in any way, though I know many people within it, and I like to make that clear as I have been asked to provide "independent" analysis in the past.

Anyways, I’ve gone on waaaaay too long. Your point, such as it is, seems to be that certain vague undefined past predictions might have been wrong if we knew what they were and who said them. Therefore, chances are, the general consensus among those who have actually studied the issue of oil supply is probably wrong now.

Here’s the thing. I’m not even saying that you should believe me. You should retain a healthy scepticism by all means. However, if the experts are right then ignoring them is plainly suicidal. And even if they are wrong, believing them will still have a demonstrably positive influence on our world.

I was in a hurry earlier; had to go and plant a strawberry patch. Let me explain more carefully what I’m on about.

Since my grandmother was a small child, we have been told by the experts that the world is just about to run out of oil. It’s always in the next ten to fifteen years. You’re saying that you expect a world shortfall within the next decade. Ten years ago, there was supposed to be a world shortfall within the next decade. Twenty years ago, we were told to expect as a matter of certainty a world shortfall within the next decade. And, thirty years ago, guess what? When your predictions are that consistently inaccurate, you can expect the occasional bit of sarcasm from people like me when you tell them that we’re certainly about to run out of oil.

As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not an expert in the field, so I don’t claim to be able to tell who’s right and who’s wrong in a technical debate about why the predictions might be wrong. And no, I have no idea what methodology was used to make the predictions. The fact remains that they were made, they were publicised, and there wasn’t a chorus of voices from petrogeologists telling the public to ignore them. If you and your colleagues thought the predictions were nonsense and failed to let that be known, then you were remiss, to say the least, and the scepticism you now face from people like me is your own damn fault. If, on the other hand, you thought the predictions were true, then there’s a problem with your theories and methodology. I don’t need to know anything whatsoever about petrogeology to be able to make that claim: I just need the ability to compare a hypothesis with observed reality. When they clash, I may conclude that the hypothesis is wrong. When they clash repeatedly, I may conclude that there’s a problem with the theory behind the hypotheses.

You say that the Hubbert curve methodology is reliably accurate, and has been in use since 1971. That means that it was available when the claims were made that we would run out of oil by the end of the 70s, that we would run out of oil by the mid-80s, that we would run out of oil by the early 90s, and that we would run out of oil by the year 2000. So, either the methodology that you claim is infallible isn’t, or you and your colleagues had access to a genuinely infallible methodology but declined to use it. Either way, it doesn’t give me much confidence in your latest prediction.

You claim that Hubbert curve analysis is consistently accurate at telling you where to drill for oil. I don’t know anything about that, and you clearly do, so I’ll take your word for it. Fine. But I don’t care, as I wasn’t discussing or making any claims about where one should drill. I was simply saying that predictions of worldwide shortfalls are consistently wrong, which they are. So far, in fact, not one such prediction has been correct.

Which leads us on to alternative theories. Again, I don’t know enough about the field to say which alternative theories are correct, if any. I pointed out that some scientists are speculating that oil is a renewable resource and may not even be a fossil fuel, which they are. But, again, I don’t need to know anything about the field to work out why alternative theories are cropping up: because something has been going on which current theory has failed to explain. You say the abiotic theory of oil has been debunked. Again, fine; I’ll take your word for it. But, as long as your industry’s predictions of worldwide shortages fail to come true, you can expect more alternative theories to come along, as some scientists strive to explain what’s going on more accurately than you do.

Now, if you were to say that, yes, those past predictions were wrong, but this latest one won’t suffer from the same problems because of differences in its methodology, I’d at least treat your claim seriously. Instead, though, you insist that those past predictions, of which everyone in the Western world is well aware, which we all grew up with, which a well-informed expert from the UN came to my school to explain to us, simply never happened. That makes me think you’re disingenuous. And then you bring up informed consensus. Science is not decided by consensus, as you should know, and history is littered with broad scientifically informed consensuses which were utterly, completely wrong.

Now, go ahead and tell me that I obviously haven’t studied some technical theory or other and haven’t read all the latest papers, so shouldn’t be allowed to criticise the sayings of an expert like you.

And I think the point about the Boy Who Cried Wolf was precisely that the wolf did actually come in the end. Remember?

Yet, puzzlingly, we keep getting these predictions that don’t come true. Can you perhaps begin to imagine why that undermines faith in your methodology?

> This is because, from a physics point of view, energy is "the ability to do work". Energy is not a commodity like copper

You’re not comparing like with like here. You could compare energy to matter, or copper to oil.

Anyway, like I said, I’m not disputing your expertise, and certainly don’t claim to be capable of evaluating all the scientific evidence. I’m simply pointing out, correctly, that, so far, every single predicted oil shortage has failed to come true. I am well aware of the problems of inductive reasoning and that past predictions don’t influence the accuracy of future predictions, but I have also heard the story of the boy who cried wolf.

Must dash.

Oil accounts for 98% of the energy used in the global transport sector and – combined with natural gas – almost 75% of all the energy consumed by the world’s economy. Fibre optics won’t cut it when it comes to filling up your car or heating your house.

And hydrogen isn’t an energy resource by the way. It takes more energy to produce a quantity of hydrogen than can be extracted from the hydrogen. It’s like electricity, or batteries… a storage container for fossil-fuels.

The article you linked to ends with an interesting line from one of the geologists… "I’m a scientist, so I have to keep an open mind. But I need to see some evidence." There is – in the views of most geologists – absolutely conclusive evidence that crude oil is a fossil fuel. However, no evidence has been provided by the abiotic theorists that it is not a fossil fuel. All that’s been done is to reveal possible sources of small quantities of abiotic hydrocarbons in the Ukraine. To extrapolate from that "evidence" that crude oil is non-biological in origin is scientific daftness of the highest order.

It doesn’t surprise me in the least however that the abiotic theory has been resurrected lately. It’s a clear symptom of the desperation of oil industry economists. In August 1999 Goldman Sachs quietly issued the following advice to investors…
"The rig count over the last twelve years has reached bottom. This is not because of low oil price. The oil companies are not going to keep rigs employed to drill dry holes. They know it but are unable and unwilling to admit it. The great merger mania is nothing more than a scaling down of a dying industry in recognition of the fact that 90% of global conventional oil has already been found."

And interestingly, despite sustained high oil prices, the rig count isn’t exploding all of a sudden to exploit the near infinite quantities of abiotic oil. In fact, what little increased drilling is going on is largely occurring in deep sea regions.

Drilling dry holes in deep water is a very very expensive business compared with drilling dry holes on land. If the exploration department of any oil company (the one place you can still rely on finding geologists and not economists) took abiotic oil even half seriously, they’d be doing land-based drilling (after all, surface geology has precisely no impact on the likelihood of discovering abiotic oil, right?) rather than attempting risky and expensive deepwater drilling into "the right geology".

Anyway, the idea of abiotic oil is – in a way – irrelevant. If it turns out that the earth is generating abiotic crude oil at a sustainable level contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then "peak oil" is a complete myth.

But Squander Two, you have to appreciate my own perspective… I’ve been studying petrogeology for the best part of 7 years; have visited numerous oil fields, rigs and exploration projects; and have not met a single field geologist, drilling engineer, or academic petrogeologist who isn’t 100% certain that they are dealing with a fossil fuel that is formed at a specific depth by a specific geology. It’s been borne out by every single well ever drilled by a major oil company.

So when people like yourself, who acknowledge that you "don’t claim to know much about the field" point to a couple of google links that contradict all of that. Well, it’s hard not to be very sceptical. I’m not saying that you "shouldn’t be allowed to mention that the debate’s occurring"; just that you can find evidence that alien technology is powering the stealth fighter if you look hard enough on the net.

Anyways, you again fall back on the idea that because past predictions were false, so all future predictions must be false. Yes, in the 1920s there were people making warnings. So what? They were using incorrect data and methodologies.

We now have excellent data. And M. King Hubbert discovered the correct methodology for predicting depletion. That’s why saying "Ah, but, they weren’t Hubbert analyses!" about previous predictions does, in fact, cut it.

There are a thousand wrong ways to predict oil flow from a reservoir, but there is also a right way. In the 1950s Hubbert demonstrated a particular depletion curve based upon the known physics and geology of oil reservoirs. When he applied it to the cumulative fields of the continental United States it predicted a peak production year of 1970.

He wasn’t given particular credence. But production peaked in 1971. Since then Hubbert curves have been applied to individual fields, to regions and to entire nations. With one or two exceptions (leaky reservoirs, that kind of thing) it always works.

It’s important that people get this… fringe theories aside; the geology of oil reservoirs and the physics of extraction is actually very well understood now.

For millennia people have been speculating as to what the moon is made of. From blue cheese to silver pixie dust. But we eventually discovered a scientific methodology for actually working it out. And one day an astronomer said "it’s made of certain kinds of rock and has a light powdery surface". Just because previous people had said that it’s made of blue cheese wasn’t a reason to discount him. And a few years later, when we went to the moon, he was proven right.

I use that example mainly because the astronomer in question was one Thomas Gold. A brilliant astrophysicist who in his mid-70s wrote a very strange book on a subject he had no real expertise in.

On the subject of peak oil there’s now what I’d call a "consensus of the informed". The debate about whether it’s happening is all but over; the question of what to do about it, is what we face now. And Britain and the United States appear – rather unimaginatively – to have chosen to apply a military sticking plaster to a fractured skull.