Vous voulez voir cette page en français ? Cliquez ici.

Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage
 
 

Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage [Hardcover]

Kenneth S. Deffeyes
3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (42 customer reviews)

Available from these sellers.


Formats

Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover --  
Paperback CDN $13.51  

Product Details


Product Description

Review

If you haven't yet honored your New Year's resolution to read at least one book about Petroleum Geology, the time to stop procrastinating is nigh. A substantial portion of Hubbert's Peak, The Impending World Oil Shortage is devoted to this arcane subject, and author Kenneth S. Deffeyes manages to impart a great deal of fascinating information without inflicting too much pain. For the lay reviewer expecting a heavy slog, this book comes as a delightful surprise.
Deffeyes, who started out as a working petroleum geologist and later taught Geology at Princeton University, sets out his most important thesis at the start of his book: World oil production is likely to peak in this decade, sometime between the years 2004-2008. A major crisis will then ensue, with "chaos in the oil industry, in governments and in national economies." Though he would be happy to be proved wrong, Deffeyes favors the earlier date and says it would take "a lot of unexpectedly good news to postpone the peak to 2010." In the meantime, we ought to be preparing for the shock through conservation measures and by developing alternative energy sources. So far, politician, executive and citizen alike have managed to ignore the issue altogether.
Deffeyes' prediction is based on the work of American geophysicist M. King Hubbert. In 1956, Hubbert forecast that U.S. domestic oil production would peak in the early 1970s. This prophetic analysis was confirmed in the spring of 1971, and the U.S. domestic oil industry has been producing at full capacity ever since. In Hubbert's Peak, Deffeyes shows how he and other professionals have applied the same techniques to world oil supplies in order to arrive at the impending global production peak.
Though he likens the ensuing scenario to the opening scenes from a horror movie, Deffeyes insists that his readers make up their own minds. He then proceeds to devote well over a hundred pages to a series of fairly technical expositions on everything from how oil is formed and found, to how it is produced, marketed and used. Learning about rock formations, oil windows and drill bits may not seem like light summer reading fare, but the dire warnings contained in Deffeyes' first chapter have wonderfully concentrated the mind. The author helps his readers along by including a generous sprinkling of homespun anecdotes, jokes and asides which all help to keep the pages turning at a rapid clip.
There is a method to this madness. The oil companies have been pursuing their profits and perfecting their techniques for several generations now. Geologists have waded along every river and tramped up every valley in the world. The only major oil "province" that hasn't been explored is the South China Sea, and Deffeyes doesn't think that's likely to be the next Saudi Arabia. He is trying to persuade doubters that they shouldn't count on any easy reprieves: "there is little expectation that something dramatic will come riding to the rescue as world oil production starts to decline."
Declining production does not mean that oil will simply disappear overnight. What he expects in the very near future is a bidding war that will send oil and other energy prices through the roof. If this means that SUVs are quickly cleared off the roads or that we all have to get better at turning off the light switches, things might not be so bad. When we consider problems like urban smog and global warming, it actually sounds like rather good news.
Yet at several points Deffeyes discusses the fact that oil and other fossil fuels (like natural gas) are used for more than just energy. The "petrochemical industry" provides you with a lot more than the gasoline in your tank. He suspects that our descendants will be aghast at the notion that we used to just burn this precious resource!
If we recall Vaclav Smil's recognition that intensive agriculture is heavily dependent on inputs of fossil fuels, one can be excused for beginning to feel distinctly uneasy. When Deffeyes describes the process of making ammonia (for nitrogen fertilizer) by combining atmospheric nitrogen with the hydrogen molecules in natural gas, uneasiness is transformed into outright alarm. It is almost an axiom of his cautious optimism that Smil tends to assume manageable instabilities and incremental changes. It is quite clear that he has not factored the mother of all oil shocks into his carefully constructed models.
A comfortable member of the American middle-class, justly proud of his professional achievements, some of Deffeyes more off-hand comments would probably enrage an active environmentalist. For one thing, he thinks our fears of nuclear power are overblown, and seriously discusses expanding our nuclear power generation capacities in a late chapter on "alternative" energy sources. Though clean, renewable solar and wind power have distinct long-term potential, the author explains that their "low energy density" means that we need large energy collectors. The capital and energy costs of installing this kind of equipment will be very high. He is dubious about the chances of deriving really significant amounts of energy from these eco-friendly sources anytime soon.
Though Deffeyes expects a major economic shake-up when oil production begins its long decline, he sees this as a difficult adjustment, not the start of civilization's collapse. It took nature hundreds of millions of years to build up its stores of fossil fuels, and we have managed to burn much of them up in a couple of hundred years. Since the author himself played no small role in their extraction and use, perhaps it is fitting that he should write their epitaph: "the fossil fuels are a one-time gift that lifted us up from subsistence agriculture and eventually should lead us to a future based on renewable resources."
David Colterjohn (Books in Canada) -- Books in Canada

"If [Deffeyes] is right we have, two or three years in which to ... accelerate our move from oil as fuel." -- Stuart Young, Nature

"The book is a gem...it's better to know what lies ahead than to be surprised too late to respond." -- Brian J. Skinner, American Scientist

Book Description

Were the energy concerns of the past year a preview of everyone's future? Will gas lines in the coming years make those of 1973 look short? Is the present chaos in oil prices the leading edge of a more serious crisis that will rock national economies around the world? According to Kenneth Deffeyes, a geologist with extensive personal experience in the oil industry, the answer to all of these questions is yes. World oil production is peaking and will start to fall for good sometime during this decade.

In 1956, geophysicist M. King Hubbert--then working at the Shell research lab in Houston--predicted that U.S. oil production would reach its highest level in the early 1970s. Though roundly criticized by oil experts and economists, Hubbert's prediction came true in 1971. The hundred-year period during which most of the world's oil was discovered became known as Hubbert's peak--a span of time almost comically shorter than the hundreds of millions of years the oil deposits took to form.

Using the same methods that Hubbert used to make his stunningly accurate prediction, Deffeyes finds that a peak in world oil production is less than five years away. And he argues that new exploration and production technologies can't save us. While long-term solutions exist in the form of conservation and alternative energy sources, they probably cannot--and almost certainly will not--be enacted in time to evade short-term catastrophe.

Perhaps most surprising is that none of this is news to most specialists and many associated with the petroleum industry. But politicians, the media, and the public at large aren't hearing about it. Deffeyes wants to make sure they do. Thoroughly accessible and filled with entertaining anecdotes, his book demonstrates to the general reader why a global energy crisis is just around the corner. And, though the near-term scenario is ugly, he tells us what we can do as countries and individuals to thrive after Hubbert's peak has passed.


Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index
Search inside this book:

Tag this product

 (What's this?)
Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items.
Your tags: Add your first tag
 

 

Customer Reviews

42 Reviews
5 star:
 (18)
4 star:
 (9)
3 star:
 (4)
2 star:
 (6)
1 star:
 (5)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
3.7 out of 5 stars (42 customer reviews)
 
 
 
 
Share your thoughts with other customers:
Most helpful customer reviews

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Hubbert and Deffeyes sheer speculation. Read why., July 26 2003
By 
Gaetan Lion - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage (Hardcover)
This book is speculative based on a flawed forecasting. King Hubbert made a famous prediction in 1956 that U.S. oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. His forecasting methodology was to estimate the total U.S. oil supply that was and will ever be available for production. This quantity is known as the Ultimate. This Ultimate is equal to Cumulative Historical Production + Reserves + Undiscovered Potential. Mr. Hubbert?s next step was to fit the Ultimate as the surface under a normally distributed Bell Curve with the X-axis representing time (years date: 1956, 1957, 1958) and the Y-axis representing an estimate of annual production in any given year. The Peak is equal to the midpoint on this curve and represents the year at the half life of U.S. oil supply. It also represents the "peak" highest annual production. Every year after that would experience ever declining production following the declining right side of a normal distribution Bell curve. Kenneth Deffeyes extends the same methodology to the whole World oil supply, and infers that the peak will be reached between 2004 and 2008, and thereafter, oil production will decline very rapidly.

What is wrong with that methodology? A lot, as will see. I tested King Hubbert prediction by plotting U.S. crude oil annual production from 1949 to 2001. I found out that the data is far more dispersed than a normal distribution is. Thus, King Hubbert use of a normal distribution is incorrect, and will lead to erroneous forecasts. Giving Mr. Hubbert a break, I figured what he really meant was symmetry from the peak. Thus, if you know the production in the peak year, you can forecast the production in the out years after that. Well, using this technique, I figured the production level 10 years after the peak (in 1980) should be the equal to the one 10 years before the peak (1960), and so on and so forth. This should be true even if the data was perfectly normally distributed or not. Doing so, I found that King Hubbert forecast underestimated actual U.S. oil production by 22% in 1980, 32% in 1985, and 36% in 1990. This is as far as I could go, given that I had no data before 1949.

In view of the above, King Hubbert was really lucky in projecting the peak year to be between 1965 and 1970 (actual was in 1970), but his methodology totally missed the mark in forecasting U.S. oil production after 1970.

Why was King Hubbert's forecast so off? Besides the statistical technicalities (data not normally distributed)) the main reason is that he missed the oil production from Alaska. Alaska started producing oil in 1959, but peaked in 1988. Thus, the life cycle of the Alaskan oil fields were totally different from the ones of the 48 lower states. Thus, for any prediction regarding oil production, it has to be done at the oil field level, not at a national level (or even worst World level). To streamline the data, you could group oil fields by starting date of oil production, and types (different geological conditions must lead to different production curves). Once you have your portfolio of oil field buckets so defined, you could observe the oil production level behavior of each bucket. With this data, you could then develop a Monte Carlo simulation with a few random variables that would influence oil production (oil price, conservation effort, etc.). From this you would develop a much richer output giving you a range of probability for specific oil production levels in any given year. Anything short of this effort won?t tell you anything statistically meaningful.

When Kenneth Deffeyes extends the Hubbert methodology to the whole World he runs into other major roadblocks. Deffeyes has no idea what is the actual reserve level in the Middle East. This is not his fault, no one does. As mentioned in the book, Middle Eastern oil producers artificially boosted their reserve level numbers in the late eighties when OPEC started to allocate selling quotas proportional to countries reserves. However, the industry consensus is that these reserves were grossly understated before the late eighties. Thus, no one knows reserve numbers good enough for forecasting purposes.

Deffeyes also makes a weak case that we have essentially discovered all the oil there is. I don?t think so. There is much oil field development going on in Russia and Kazakhstan. Additionally, the U.S. has greatly curtailed its oil production potential due to environmental restrictions affecting the Alaska Northern Wildlife Refuge, and the two coasts (California, Florida). These environmental regulations will be moderated or lifted as oil supply becomes a severe economic constraint. Similarly, I am not convinced that the Middle Eastern oil fields have been exploited to the limit of current technology. As we speak, Iraq's production is only progressively moving forward to its full potential. Thus, Deffeyes prediction will run in many "Alaska" type errors just as Hubbert did. His forecast will be just as flawed. Predicting the peak is one thing. Predicting how oil production declines over the next three decades is a lot more challenging and valuable to society. It is this aspect of the forecast that totally eludes Hubbert and Deffeyes methodology.

Another of Deffeyes miscalculation is his belief that our society could very rapidly adapt to a post-oil economy. In other words, hydrogen and other fuel could quickly replace oil as the supporting fuel of our civilization. This is nuts.

Mr. Deffeyes is a Cassandra on the oil outlook. Oil production will more than likely decline far slower than he predicts. But, he is a utopic Pollyanna on the oil energy substitution outlook. In other words, he is wrong on all counts.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Interesting, but little more, Jun 29 2002
By 
Daniel M. Jarvie (Humble, Texas USA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage (Hardcover)
Hubbert's Peak by Deffeyes is an interesting book on petroleum geology and exploration. Unfortunately, the title of the book was on the impending oil shortage. After several chapters on petroleum geology Deffeyes finally discussing the supposed main topic of the book almost as an afterthought. There were numerous factual errors in the book that diminish the author's credibility. For example, hydrocarbon generation can only be explained by decomposition energies in the range of 14kcal/mole. This is nonsensical and reflects literature references from the 1970's that were shortly thereafter proven incorrect. In addition citing an activation energy without the corresponding Arrhenius constant makes the value entirely nonsensical. Please remember that it is a rate equation. Also Shell has a lot of produced hydrocarbons from source rocks with less than 8% TOC, which Deffeyes cites as their supposed minimum organic richness; I imagine the ExxonMobil crowd enjoyed the inaccuracy of these statements since Deffeyes since many of his "facts" were laughable. If this book had been reviewed for publication in a scientific journal, most of the "facts" cited would have not gotten by reviewers and as a paper would have been subjected to a complete rewrite. This book should have been reviewed by someone with technical competence prior to publication. Retitle the book, please, to reflect the actual content. I gave the book to a lay person so they could understand a bit about the oil business (told them to ignore my written comments by many of the "facts").
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2.0 out of 5 stars Yikes - Somebody get Mr. Deffeyes a Ghost Writer!, Jun 27 2004
By 
Chris Patry "cpatry" (Palos Verdes Estates, CA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
While I tend to agree with some of what Mr. Deffeyes concludes, I have to say he did a woeful job of presenting a case for his conclusions. Other authors have done much better making a case for the obvious end of rising oil production.

Deffeyes' writing style is atrocious. He constantly digresses and hopelessly abandons the reader in a morass of minutiae and gaps in written explanations. Most of the book does not even directly address his title. Too much of the book is a disjointed "explanation" of oil industry geology ... "stream of consciousness" petroleum geology/statistics if you will. It is as if he dictated the book, and didn't bother to have it proof read to see if anyone could follow his ramblings.

I would have given the book one star except for the fact that there are some usefull and understandable explanations in the book. If you are a fanatic on this subject, it may be worthwhile trying to read it. Otherwise, there are many other more persuasive, well written books on the subject.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
Want to see more reviews on this item?
 Go to Amazon.com to see all 69 reviews  3.7 out of 5 stars 
 
 
Most recent customer reviews











Only search this product's reviews



Listmania!

Create a Listmania! list

Look for similar items by category


Look for similar items by subject


Feedback