205. IS PEAK OIL SOMETHING THAT THE LAYMAN NEEDS TO WORRY ABOUT?
This question has been nagging me lately. The general vibe from the peak oil community is that peak oil is imminent, and even ordinary people need to take it very seriously, right now. Note that I'm not saying that scientists, engineers, investors, economists and other specialists shouldn't be concerned about it. They are and should be. It's a tough technical problem, and it's interesting in its own right. What I'm asking is: why do lay people need to know about it?
The usual answer is: it's going to shake up your life. It's going to get you whether you pay attention or not. But I look at my own life, and nothing much is really happening. Despite the ongoing energy crisis, and oil rising by as much as 7 times in 7 years, peak oil has had no noticeable impact whatsoever on my life. I wouldn't be any worse off if I didn't know about it. Yes, it's a fun topic, and I like to follow it, but that's just my own personal quirk. On the scale of problems which directly affect my daily life, peak oil ranks near the bottom. I wouldn't even notice it if I wasn't looking for it. Even for heavy energy users in the U.S., the problem has been fairly marginal. All they really need to know, as lay people, is: "Hmm... Fuel's getting more expensive these days, better conserve."
Do they really need to obsessively follow the news in the peak oil community? It's like a hungry mouth that needs to be fed. It's one spooky headline after another: the die-off in Niger, Katrina, bird flu, storage depot explosion in the UK, the Russia gas crisis, the latest UK fuel oil crisis etc. etc. But, oddly enough, all these problems get resolved and forgotten, and then the chase is on for the next one. I was thinking about this "news cycle", and remembering that even Laherrere (a peak oil pessimist from ASPO) forecasts an all liquids peak in the year 2015. That's about 10 years from now, and I imagined all these peak burn-outs turning gray, going from headline to headline for the next 10 years. It's kind of a sad thought.
It's actually even worse than that. In the late 70s and early 80s, world oil production dropped by 15% over 5 years, and nothing particularly doomy happened then either. I was driving at that time, and I never even noticed that an oil crisis was happening. There was a recession, but it's not like you really need to "prepare" or educate yourself for a recession. Generally, everybody goes into a recession unprepared, and still muddles through. I didn't know anything about the 1979 peak, and it didn't do me any harm.
So how much does a person really need to know about peak oil?
-- JD
4 Comments:
the phrase "Peak Oil" is so tainted now for anyone except geologists, that we should just call it "Oil Depletion". That's a much more self-explanatory name anyway.
Funny you should say that. I was thinking of calling it "the transition". That way it doesn't have such a loaded, terminal sound to it. Also, I think the focus on oil is retrogressive. It's like focusing on the horse during the horse->car transition.
Why not just call it what it means to most people--higher oil prices? People can adjust to higher oil prices, or higher prices for any commodity.
People have adjusted to higher prices for as long as people have been trading with each other.
For doomers, peak oil is code for their very own fantasy of retribution. It's part of their religion, a ritualistic phrase.
I feel like there is a big disconnect between the amount of time people spend studying peak oil, and the actual benefit they derive from doing so. It has a low "EROEI", so to speak. It would be nice if there was a simple, upbeat, one page FAQ that told the layperson all he/she really needed to know about peak oil, so they could get back to enjoying their regular life. Peak oil is my hobby, so I enjoy looking into the details, but it seems to be overkill for ordinary people to be checking the peak oil sites daily, worrying about specialist topics like USGS stats and reservoir engineering in Saudi Arabia.
There are credible people saying the decline rate will be as high as 8%/per year.
Analysis based on Hubbert theory shows that the world decline rate will be less than 2% for 20 years after the peak, increasing to about 4% by 40 years after the peak.
Hubbert Theory says Peak is Slow Squeeze
Colin Campbell's current forecast shows liquids+NG production declining from 50Gboe to 38Gboe in the period from 2010 to 2045. That's an annual decline rate of 0.8%.
I'll take another look at your 8% when your "credible people" have names.
Post a Comment
<< Home