Oil will eventually run out. It is its natural course because it is a finite resource, but this technological nightmare has more than common sense to support it, and that is what the Hubbert peak theory explains. Predicting the peak and decline of the energy that underpins modern society, the theory suggests that the end of oil is close, compelling us to consider what we will do when that happens.
Within the oil industry, a debate has spread to all other industries and scientific disciplines related to the fossil fuel par excellence. It is no minor discussion, because whatever predictions are made about the expiration date of our access to oil, it will eventually be exhausted, since its nature indicates it is a finite and non-renewable material. The debate questions different perspectives on the limited nature of oil, generating various scenarios both in the short and long term.
Some scenarios speculate about the possibility of having oil for more than 100 more years, thanks to current drilling, untapped fields, alternative extraction methods, and the efficiency still to be achieved with new technology. On the other hand, the Hubbert peak theory estimates an early decline in oil production, which could force us to quickly transition to a new type of energy, whether by discovering it or accelerating the development of those we already know as alternatives or nuclear.
What does the Hubbert peak theory state?
First, we should know that the theory takes its name from geophysicist M. King Hubbert, who became famous for predicting the production peak of the United States fifteen years in advance. Having created the mathematical model to predict the level of oil extraction in a given period, Hubbert left as a legacy the idea that oil extraction tends to become more expensive after reaching a maximum production point. In other words, each barrel of oil that can be produced will cost more because there will be a scarcity of the material or an equalization between extraction costs and the price of a barrel of oil.
What is called 'Peak' is the zenith, the maximum point of oil production in a given country or region, taking into account oil prices, extraction cost, demand, and relative scarcity due to lack of wells or inexpensive extraction technology. Explaining this, Hubbert says that “at some point a level of extraction is reached that cannot be surpassed no matter how advanced the technology used or how many wells are drilled.” That is when the production peak begins and with it the decline of oil production.
Consequences of the Hubbert peak
One of the first consequences of oil ceasing to be profitable to extract is that the product itself would become scarce. Unlike the past, scarcity would be due to permanent natural and economic reasons, not political and temporary issues. The lack of oil to meet the immense demand in a modern society prosperous in comforts funded by this type of energy could generate social conflicts, mitigated or aggravated by the measures that different countries have or have not adopted since the beginning of the oil industry's collapse.
Currently, oil dependence can cost us dearly, both from the impossibility of fueling food harvesters and from poor Haitians being unable to go to school hundreds of kilometers from their homes without electricity. Dramatic visions on the matter are the order of the day, and imagining that the end of oil could lead to Malthusian catastrophes makes us think a lot about what we have done as humans and the little room we have to reverse it.
Of course, technology must be promoted so that the trend is fossil fuels such as methane or coal, or in a better scenario, alternative (solar, wind, etc.) and non-polluting energies become a new way of giving light and movement to the world. This last scenario would not be so damaging if we have the right technology, although economically it could imply a strong recession since new fuels are not equally effective.
Is there a positive scenario?
Following Hubbert's line (who in 1956 predicted that by 1970 the US would reach its oil production peak and from then on the industry would decline), there is more than one possible scenario. Now, on a positive level and considering modernity, followers of the end-of-oil theory warn that there are several ways to reduce this considerably, but one of the most important topics is the involvement of politics and the implications of everything related to such powerful products.
Undoubtedly, another objective to be set will be research into new ways of generating energy and increasing the power of fuel usage. Hybrid and electric vehicles, low electrical consumption, and other energy-saving methods are necessary in a negative scenario, and if this does not work properly, there is always the possibility that modern technologies advance and we do not need as much oil.
Opponents of the theory
Like any theory that aspires to be global, the Hubbert peak theory has a select group of opponents to this idea of predicting the future use of oil. Most think Hubbert has had more errors than predictions, citing peaks that never occurred or crises that never existed. Whoever they are, very few deny that oil is a fossil fuel and therefore limited. Many critics come from the oil and automotive industries.
On the other side of the spectrum, some economist critics claim that scarcity will motivate the search for new discoveries and that reserves will increase beyond what Hubbert predicted. This position is valid, but we must anticipate that the market itself will resolve the issue, and we know—from all the international crises of the world economic system—that the market does not play its cards well.
While the current debate focuses on each country's energy policy and on cutting unnecessary expenses, most critics argue that the peak will not occur so soon and that the shape of the peak could be irregular and stretch out rather than decline rapidly as Hubbert's theory and the variables he chose in his study predict.
For now, research will continue trying to find a model for analyzing oil production that does take into account the Hubbert peak theory, because it is better to prepare in advance than to suffer later the consequences of overconfidence.
