The Death of Peak Oil (at least for now) [View all]

[GliderGuider]

During the five years between 2004 and 2009, the hot topic in energy-watching circles was Peak Oil. According to the popular extrapolation of M. King Hubbert's theory, all the straws we had jammed into Gaia's petroleum milkshake would soon be sucking air as the oil remaining in the big fields like Ghawar, Cantarell and the North Sea began to run dry. The volume of oil we could suck from the teats of long-suffering Mother Earth would begin to decline, never to recover. The implication for many (myself included) was that the collapse of civilization was therefore imminent, with Mad Max waiting just around the corner to sell us the remaining dregs at gunpoint, for $500 a barrel.

For those who followed the monthly data on crude oil extraction in those years, the picture seemed clear. Crude and condensate production had been on a wobbly plateau for four years, hitting a peak of 74 mbpd in 2008.The decline to under 73 mbpd in 2009 seemed to confirm our nightmares. It was all over but the cannibalism.

Well, most of us are still eating hotdogs rather than neighborhood dogs; the fears proved to be unfounded. Oil production recovered in 2010 and has not looked back since.



The question of how so many smart, well-intentioned people could have been so wrong deserves an answer. My take on it, after spending some time in self-examination, is that two factors were responsible.

The first problem was that the Peak Oil "analysts" were operating out of a knowledge silo. The majority of them had experience in the oil industry, as petroleum geologists or other workers. Because of that, their knowledge was primarily confined to the details of oil recovery. Very few of them (Nicole Foss and Gail Tverberg being notable exceptions) had much exposure to economics, finance or politics. This meant that most of the players did not fully understand that oil was only one factor in a complex global socio-economic system. It was a glaring example of the attraction of reductionism - when the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems become nails.

Then there were the people like me, amateurs who became transfixed by Hubbert's theory and relied primarily on the expertise of the oil guys in the group. We became the religious converts - the average Joes and Janes who reinforced the self-image of the experts through our breathless agreement.

The second problem was one of human psychology.

Most people are prone to something called normalcy bias: the assumption that "things are generally normal", and that since a disaster never has occurred then it never will occur. It causes people to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation. The opposite of normalcy bias would be overreaction, or "worst-case thinking" bias. Guess which camp the Peak Oilers fell into?

Every time someone with a wider perspective tried to intervene in our oil-centric "orgy of doom" we simply accused them of suffering from a bad case of normalcy bias.

One other factor complicated the psychological landscape. Many of us felt the crushing stress of being out of step with an increasingly inhumane world. I suspect that as a result some of us harbored a desire that it should all come to an end, no matter what the human cost might be. Most of us never expressed that desire - it's not socially acceptable after all - so we repressed it and instead channeled our mental energy into validating our catastrophist biases.

With the world exhibiting severe problems and crises in so many areas, from climate change and biospheric damage to economics and international politics, finding a realistic path through the competing messages becomes a real tightrope act. If one is open to the negative data and does not want to fall victim to normalcy bias, one runs the constant risk of falling off the tightrope on the catastrophist side. On the other hand, if someone is not comfortable with the idea of catastrophe, they may take refuge in normalcy bias. Both sides of these debates engage in serious cherry-picking of the data and tend to pay attention to only those facts that reinforce their psychological outlook. It's just human nature, after all.

We would all benefit from the Peak Oil kerfuffle if we used it as lesson learned, and put some conscious effort into examining our own biases, beliefs and hidden desires with a rare bit of ruthless honesty. As I can attest, such self-assessment is a slow, halting and often painful process. But with so much at stake in the world these days, a little honesty can go a very long way.