Dr Ian Lavering (Southern Hemisphere)

Beyond Oil, The View from Hubbert's Peak, by Kenneth Deffeyes. Hill and Wang. 2005, 202 p, ISBN 13:978-0-8090-2956-3. Available from Amazon.com.

The follow-up volume to Kenneth Deffeyes very successful Hubbert's Peak, the impending world oil shortage (2001), this book (written in 2004) seeks to take up the discussion where his previous volume left off; namely, what alternatives are available if the world is about to experience the ongoing decline in the productivity and quality of major crude oil reserves. While this intriguing issue is a critical one for the current state of world affairs, and the future of the world economy, the early part of the book goes over some of the ground already discussed by the earlier book. One would have hoped that this was not necessary and that the space would otherwise be devoted to covering the new ground with greater depth of argument on new issues.

What is new in this volume is that Deffeyes examines the alternative energy sources and the issues associated with their use. His key point is that even if Hubbert is wrong, to do nothing, is the worst of possible alternatives. He sees great urgency in the next few years which previous generations have never had to face. Alternative energy strategies are required immediately or a major decline will put much of our fate in the hands of others. Indeed he suggests that the world of tomorrow will be a very unfamiliar place to those of us who have grown up with a relatively abundant oil supply. But to face this situation we are likely to have nothing more than the technologies we have already developed, not an attractive prospect.

Deffeyes oil peak is postulated as 24 November 2005 (`Thanksgiving' Day), after this date world oil will go into decline, slowly at first then more rapidly. Some of the impacts of this potential decline are already evident in market trends evident in 2004 and 2005. Record oil prices and periodic oscillations close to these peak prices are seen as the key indicators of oil imminent decline. While the reasons for such nominally high oil prices are multifaceted, their impact is likely to be repeated, if Deffeyes is even only half right. He sees recent record oil output (2003) being only 3% higher than 1998 - a trend of decreasing incremental growth is in Deffeyes views a sure sign that the peak is very close. A decline to 90% of peak capacity is suggested by 2019. The key vulnerability for the world is transport and trade; the movement of goods and the marketing of services will be the key sector where the major impact will fall.

In my view, the weakest aspect of his previous book was Deffeyes lack of insight into the potential of natural gas to be used as a substitute for oil based fuels (diesel and gasoline) in transport. This issue still remains a matter concern in my mind which I don't think this second book alleviates. Deffeyes deals with the issue in his second book in chapter four `Mostly Gas'. In this, chapter Deffeyes suggests that in North America natural gas markets are experiencing peak production, if not decline, similar to that of global oil production. What concerns me most about this argument is that gas markets in the rest of the world are not as well connected, integrated or mature as the North American gas market. In fact there is considerable spare gas capacity and undeveloped resources in the rest of the world. Unlike the global oil market, gas markets are still patchy and poorly connected with a deal of infrastructure lacking and hence greater potential for additional supply. Not all parts of the potential global gas market are developed or have the level of infrastructure necessary to reach peak capacity, and may not do so for much of the next 20 to 30 years. I this differ greatly with Deffeyes with his argument that natural gas is likely to experience capacity limitations at the same time as the oil peak or that the gas capacity will be similar to that well evident for crude oil capacity. As a consequence, I see considerable potential for natural gas substitution for crude oil fuels in transport and this is where I would differ with Deffeyes. As a consequence I suggest we may not quite be in the bind which he suggests.

Deffeyes' consideration of alternative energy sources looks at both existing and alternative energy sources. The option of coal (abundant but a poor environmental record) has the advantage of established technology but as yet cannot be regarded as a viable alternative for petroleum. I do, however, agree with the thrust of Deffeyes views on tar, oil shale and other forms of low-grade petroleum; their extraction costs and productive capacity do not provide much comfort or potential to relieve the possible shortfall in crude oil production.

Deffeyes does see some potential in the capacity of the nuclear energy industry for electricity generation. He suggests that wider use of nuclear-based electricity generation is an important option to the growing shortage of oil and natural gas. Deffeyes sees hydrogen fuel as a partial solution for the transport sector; natural gas is the preferred source for generating hydrogen, coal is the second favored source. But whatever the source he doesn't see the Hydrogen Economy of Jeremy Rifkin developing.

Whatever the options chosen, doing nothing is not an option. Major changes in all of the agricultural and industrial processes we have become used to are what Deffeyes sees as being most susceptible to change. In his view, there is not enough time to research alternatives, we have to start making major changes which generate immediate benefits; there isn't scope for an exhaustive search. Energy efficient automobiles, cogeneration and enhanced carbon dioxide oil recovery are just some of the necessary options.

While I am quite sympathetic to some of Deffeyes views and some of his possible solutions, I see a lot more potential in natural gas than he does and it remains the most readily available and least radical change with which we can and will have to cope with the consequences of the coming oil peak and subsequent decline. My view of the coming oil peak is that it is just another fuel-technology transition which the human race will face; like the many which have preceded it and the others which are likely to follow.

Like the skeptical environmentalist, I agree that the human race didn't leave the Stone Age because it ran out of stones. It also didn't leave the steam age because it ran out of coal; thus the human race will not be leaving the oil age because it runs out of oil. In each of these cases, the human race found new combinations of technology and resources which were more useful and efficient than their predecessors. Technology and resources are never static and they have and will always change and oscillate through human history. We will just have to used to the fact that our day will pass before some of the changes we anticipate come about.

I recommend both Deffyes' books as useful and interesting works, both with some limitations, which hopefully we can all forgive him for, while also being thankful and appreciative of his efforts and the lifetime of experience which they embody.

Dr Ian Lavering
Adjunct Professor
MBT Program UNSW

Doom-saying with a smile

Unlike so many environment alarmists, Deffeyes states we'll come through the current energy crunch in reasonably good shape, as other energy sources become technologically and economically feasible. However, he says that our past years of dithering will cause the current crunch to bite even harder in the immediate future. More and more demand on less and less oil will cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth before a solution emerges.

The meat of the book is a series of very informative rundowns of the particulars, history, and status of the various alternative technologies. Wind, shale, liquefied natural gas and etc. are all explained and their prospects examined. He alludes to the famous wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich when he says than sure, there's plenty of zinc and lead, if that's what you want. But energy sources are another matter.

And he's quite witty. He remarks that one particular chemical method of shale oil production would probably spawn any number of lawsuits. "The torts might be more profitable than the retorts."

It's rather sobering for someone who came up in the Jet Age to consider that cheap, abundant energy may soon be no more. It gives even more pause to think, as Deffeyes reminds us, that the age of the gas internal combustion engine is scarcely two human lifetimes old. We've come so far, it seems like forever.

And not to put a cap on human ingenuity, but what possible substitute could there be for something like aviation fuel? You can't fly at Mach 1.8 on solar cells. We're facing some major changes in the coming decades, and Prof. Deffeyes book is a most welcome roadmap.

Horse Sense

Kenneth Deffeyes states clearly he has no crystal ball to tell exactly what it will be like after global oil production starts to decline, he writes that the peak in world oil production should occur on Thanksgiving day 2005 or in the first few months of 2006, then begin it's inexorable decline. One of the chapters I enjoyed best was his explanation of what exactly is the Hubbert Peak. He explains it clearly, and a layman like myself can understand and appreciate it's power of prognostication. Deffeyes also details how oil naturally exists in oilfields, very informative. Other chapters cover gas, coal, heavy oil and tar sands, uranium, hydrogen, and the last chapter ties everything together. Deffeyes writes here in a very conversationist style, with dry humor permeating.

He also thinks societies will eventually develop alternatives to the cheap oil addiction we now have, but only after a period of wildly oscillating energy prices, which will finally end at a higher price plateau. Covered here are lots of energy alternatives. Deffeyes considers nuclear power to be a worthy candidate to get more of our power from in the future, I agree, the disposal issue has been detrimentally exagerated, environmentalists need to support nuclear energy as a clean domestic energy source, and build more reactors.

In the last chapter there are guidelines, in a very general presentation, of what we can do as a society, and as individuals, to get past what Deffeyes writes will be a very difficult 10 years or so, until alternatives are developed. The author, and many others, say we have squandered the past 20 years or so, and that these energy alternatives should have been well developed by now. Oh well, I guess it serves us right since we elected mostly lawyers for congress! One thing I disagree with Deffeyes on is his call for cleaner diesels on our highways. Trues, by 2010 90% of the sulfer now in diesel fuel will be removed, but with millions more diesel vehicles on our roads it will still be a sooty mess. Diesels are nasty! Hybrids are also mentioned in the book, to me this is the way to go, I can see in the future hybrid vehicles getting more and more power from their batteries, which will improve over time, with the gasoline engine used only for long distances, or towing. Later versions of hybrids should allow the owners to plug them in to the power grid to lessen use of the engine.

Deffeyes is not doom and gloom on the energy issue as some other experts are. On this issue you have to make up your own mind. But one thing is nearly certain, higher prices for nearly everything are in our future.