Peak Oil is a controversial concept. Some people actually think that the production of oil in nature is continuous (which is a tiny bit, but hardly at all, true) so we can keep pumping oil out of the ground and it will just keep being produced by tiny microbes. But aside from that particular, and annoying, made-up controversy, "real" Peak Oil (or should I say Peak Real Oil) is still controversial. Peak Oil is defined as the moment when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction occurs, and thereafter production declines steadily, like on a bell curve. But that is, in my view, the wrong way to look at it. I would like to propose a different way, and to understand this approach we first must understand chocolate chip cookies. Which is not difficult.
If you make a batch of chocolate chip cookies, then everyone in the house starts to eat them, when does "Peak Chocolate Chip Cookies" occur? Obviously, this occurs the moment the chocolate chip cookies are pulled out of the oven. That is when the maximum number of cookies are available. Subsequent "extraction" rates are not a function of cookie availability, but rather, the social politics of the household, the number of hungry people, and other factors. The cookies will be "extracted" at any one of a number of rate functions. Often, the initial number of cookies extracted from the cooling rack, cookie plate, or cookie jar starts out very slow because they are too hot and have not achieved structural stability so they are hard to eat, especially for dunkers. But then the rate may go way up and then, because the cookies are being consumed rapidly, and/or people become sated, it may go down. Or, the baker of the cookies may bake them in secret and hide them in the cookie jar until after dinner, then reveal the existence of the cookies at which time peak extraction commences. Or there may be house rules as to how many cookies everyone can eat which will affect the rate of extraction. And so on. But no matter what, Peak Cookie happened the moment the cookies were pulled, baked, from the oven. (We will leave the consumption of cookie dough prior to baking for discussion at another time.) The point is, it is easy to see that "Peak Cookie" happens at the moment baking ends, and the variation in extraction rate thereafter is a function of many factors that will vary from household to household and from time to time. And all those factors are important events or processes. Peak Cookie, as a concept, is uninformative of the social dynamics, demographics, and collective individual proclivities of the household, which really are the things that matter.
This analogy reveals the fact that the "peak" (measured as production) is only part of a function of how much substance (cookies, oil) there is, and is, until the amount of substance is just about to run out, more a function of other things. For oil, this includes knowledge (of oil deposits), technology (to extract harder to get at oil), geopolitics (some oil is in countries that are currently in a snit, or that we don't talk to), and of course, economics.
And, really, what I want to know about, and what you want to know about, is our own personal peak oil, or more manageably, our encompassing society's peak oil. For instance, if a large deposit of oil is unavailable because we say so (for conservation reasons unrelated to petroleum) or political reasons (because it is buried beneath an enemy's territory) then we can't count that oil in our calculations of availability, and thus, extraction. Oil that is in our own country and not under a national park, on the other hand, is different.
In this way, perhaps a better way to think about Peak Oil is to look at the historical complexity of the process of bringing this fossil (oil is a fossil) to a place and refine it to a form that we can burn in our homes, cars or factories. Looked at it this way, from the perspective of the United States, we have had several "Peak Oil" moments.
Not counting whale oil, we experienced our first Peak Oil moment when the vast oil fields in Texas and Oklahoma and a few other places started to dry up. When that happened we started to buy more oil from countries that we really had very little respect or love for. Today, we get a fair amount of oil from a region of the world where we occasionally have to go to war to keep that oil supply open. And, we have to look the other way when the governments of those countries continue with highly objectionable policies. Imagine having a two grocery stores near your house. One of them is run by a really nice family, pillars of the community, your kids go to school with their kids, everything is fine. The other is run by a paroled sex offender who is also suspected of being a mass murderer. Plus he is a jerk. At first you always get your groceries at the store run by the nice family. But then they retire and move to Florida and you are now forced to do business with the child molesting, mass murdering jerk, because you really have no other option. That is a moment when the cost of grocery shopping, no matter what the cost of the actual groceries, becomes very high. That is a kind of peak groceries. It has little to do with the economics of the groceries. And yes, "Peak Oil" as traditionally defined is usually embedded in an economic model. This is why my suggestion of what "Peak Oil" means is different: When you (metaphorically) sell your soul to continue to obtain a resource, you've reached a moment in time that is very important.
The initiation of serious off shore drilling is another moment in the extraction of oil. Off shore drilling is expensive and dangerous at many levels. In the United States we shifted towards off shore drilling as our on-land deposits were worn out, and because it is somewhat cheaper (sometimes) to take nearby offshore oil than foreign near-the-surface on-land oil, and for geopolitical reasons. Those costs may not always be expressed in the "spot" prices of oil in dollars per barrel. But they are real costs.
Fracking is something that has been done for years. It is a nice trick to extract more from a deposit that has started to become tenacious. The technique is used for water, liquid petroleum, and gas. It is messy and expensive and usually results in a flow of product that soon diminishes, so whatever investment was made in the process initially does not have long term benefit. When you start fracking, that means you've reached one of those peaks. You are doing something you really didn't want to do because availability or cost of the same product through other means is diminished.
The Canadian Oil Sands and other tar sands type oil has been known of for years, but it has been very little exploited. It is dirty, dangerous, expensive, and often inconveniently located. But we have been using more and more of this undesirable resource, and we are talking about using a LOT more of it in the near future. The costs of using this type of resource, aside from the continued pouring of fossil carbon (as carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere, are huge. But we are doing it. Another peak.
The alternative way of thinking about Peak Oil proposed here has the benefit of being more realistic and useful because it identifies not one peak but rather multiple peaks. Also, and this is important, one aspect of this definition of Peak Oil that is new is not to measure price or some overall measure of availability which might exclude significant costs (known as "external costs"), but rather, to identify the things we really do to continue to extract the resource. Over time we are doing more and more difficult and costly things, with many of these costs going well beyond price of the product. Such extra costs include deadly warfare and allowing governments and media to be taken over by the petroleum industry with all sorts of negative side effects that go well beyond the extraction, refining, and shipping of petroleum products.
Every major shift in strategy of access to ancient petroleum can be interrogated as a possible "Peak Oil" moment.
Yes, yes, I fully understand that I've strayed very far away from the usual definition of Peak Oil. But in so doing, I think I've pointed out a more important reality inherent in the business of extracting a non-renewable resource from the earth. A simple Peak Oil curve is the subject of a great deal of argument and speculation. The problem is, this argument and speculation tends to miss the point. We are like an addict with easy access to some drug that is highly addictive, gets you really high, is not too expensive, and can be easily obtained. Then the drug source runs dry so we seek out shadier sources and start to get in trouble. Then those sources start to dry up so we turn to different drugs with more severe health effects. But that starts to become less available, and paying for it gets more difficult so, eventually, we start rooting around under the sink for anything that looks consumable and might serve to get us high or at least, knock us unconscious. Eventually, we hit the drain cleaner. That kills us. There was not a smooth curve of availability of opium that went smoothly up and down. Rather, there was a series of shifts from a not so bad thing to a worse thing to an even worse thing to the horrid end and they find our body under the back porch where we were rooting through the recycling looking for spent cans of shaving cream.
Peak Oil is a gloss. The real story is a tragedy with several acts.
Peak Oil graph from Wikipedia
- Log in to post comments
Peak oil has to due to maximum rate of extraction, i.e. dQ/dt, moreover, it is process, not an event....
This post is clearly not up to your usual high standards and suggests that you clearly out of your element...
Or, if I may be so bold as to suggest, my post is brilliant and you totally missed the point!
But thanks for the comment. It will be useful for readers who skipped the first paragraph.
Meanwhile, have a cookie.
Hey, I thought it was well done! Good crunch, but not burnt on the bottom. A fresh perspective (as well as a fresh chocolate chipper) should always be appreciated even if just for that. There were more than a few good chips in this one.
Oh, we both know that a world of hurt is coming from AGW or PO, probably both...
And as much as you and I would like to see a happy ending to the story, it would appear that what is playing out is the solution to Fermi's Paradox in real time...
Either a civilization figures out how to move beyond it's fossil fuel endowment or it dies trying. If the history of our species is any guide, when AGW becomes absolutely undeniable they will start spraying S02 in the stratosphere....
You know the rest of the story...
Excellent post - something fresh on a tired and played out subject
in fact i was thinking of "peak peak oil" - that time when the most articles on the subject were extracted from the trove of minds turned that way after appropriate time in the appropriate cooker
i myself experienced "peak peak oil poetry" - that time when i was most prolific as a "poet"
whatever, your post may be one of those statistically predictable outliers
perhaps an appropriate line
would render an end that's sublime
the peaks rise and fall
and we all drop the ball
it's just a matter of time
we could always get lucky with a bunch of volcanoes.
I thought it was well done, and the analogy is also useful because it's something that almost everyone has experienced personally.
There's something else about Peak Oil that's interesting: the concept of _one single peak_ plays into the emotional core of all dramatic narrative: that a story has a peak moment where all the plot details come to a head. This sets us up to anticipate a "dramatic moment", such as waking up one day to news headlines that oil prices have suddenly spiked to $200/bbl and grocery store shelves have been emptied by terrified crowds. When that doesn't happen, we tootle along as if nothing's the matter.
What's important about your posting here, which IMHO should be made to go viral, is that real life doesn't work like cinema: this story won't have its peak moment in the plot, but instead there will be a series of adjustments, each one involving more and worse compromises than the rest, all incremental so each of them doesn't seem "that bad."
As for Saudi, anyone who doubts that it's a truly horrid regime should look up the human rights situation there for women and girls.
And the one point on which I differed with the President during his SOTU speech, was where he said that natural gas was "the bridge fuel." In truth, natural gas is a band-aid on a life-threatening wound. The real bridge fuel will be thorium, which, in conjunction with renewables, could provide power for hundreds of years: more than sufficient to get us from here to full commercial deployment of fusion.
When you wish upon a star....
How many Thorium reactors would it take to replace existing coal and NG fired capacity? How does that compare with the existing number of conventional reactors? Is there is an existing design, what about U-233 proliferation?
As far of PO is concerned, it is very true that the fast crashers such as Hirsch were wrong. The plateau has been flat and there is no discernible 2nd derivative in the rate of production. But it should be very clear that a consequence, the Export Land Model, is playing in places like Egypt...
Fusion is pipe dream, simple as that. I would bet that we have a better chance of seeing a high current 500 MeV cyclotron optimized for muon production so as to breed plutonium via the neutron flux from D-D mu-catalyzed fusion than we do of seeing a "conventional" fusion reactor....
Greg, yeah, I suppose volcanoes could save us for a bit,...Not a bet that I would want to take though. The way I see, H. Sapiens will be doing a Peter Pan from the Balcony despite all the knowledge and understanding we have amassed...
Can't stop trying though...
Oversimplified, Greg. And ignores that what we are extracting is an energy source, strongly influenced by costs of production (and sustainability of market price of product). As the price goes up, reserves that were unavailable (because of unfavorable economics) can be exploited. As alternative sources of energy are developed, they will replace fossil fuels to the extent (and only to the extent) that they are economically feasible (not necessarily price competitive, but at a cost that a user will pay; vide UK electricity costs that are borne even though the wind/solar/ecology costs make them uncompetitive--a political decision, not a free-market result).
Plus, the effects of present-valuing the benefits of production...sooner is worth more than later.
And the cookie factory would be influenced by new startups if the prices of cookies got high enough!
A story: When I was a senior in ChemEngr school (1952) I was advised to avoid the petroleum industry as there was only some fifty years of proved reserves of petroleum. Years later it dawned on me that no one would spend money to prove up reserves any longer than that, because the present value of a barrel of oil to be produced fifty or more years in the future would be less than the current cost per barrel spent to prove it up.
BTW, cookies are a no-no in our household; too fattening!
BTW, how about the hurt that Seattle put on the Broncos!