What's the root of "the peak" -- economics or geop

[mobbsey]

I'm having an interesting debate with someone at the moment about the root cause of "the peaking" phenomena -- is is based within economics, geophysics, or a relation between the two? I'd like to canvas a few other "informed" opinions, so here's a summary of the premise:

The pattern of production which defines peak oil is not strictly geophysical, it's the result of the economic prioritisation of reserves. If we worked all mineral reserves in proportion to their spatial occurrence, not by their quality, the peak would not occur -- it develops because we exploit the most rich/economically beneficial resources first.

The occurrence of mineral resources, in terms of their quality, follows a broadly logistic/parabolic function (also called a 'parabolic fractal' distribution). By mining the richest sources of minerals first you "create" the potential for a peak in supply because, as you move down the quality curve a small reduction in quality creates a large change in the availability of the resource, but also a proportionate increase in the energy/infrastructure required to produce it. This redefines not only the physical availability of the identified resource, but also the economics and net energy of the supply process.

It's our economic relationship to the factors of mineral production, and how this relates to the probabilistic distribution of minerals, that defines the occurrence of a peak in production -- it's not an innate geophysical factor attributed to the reserve itself.

Comments? (he says, ducking behind the keyboard )

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm having an interesting debate with someone at the moment about the root cause of "the peaking" phenomena -- is is based within economics, geophysics, or a relation between the two? I'd like to canvas a few other "informed" opinions, so here's a summary of the premise:

The pattern of production which defines peak oil is not strictly geophysical, it's the result of the economic prioritisation of reserves. If we worked all mineral reserves in proportion to their spatial occurrence, not by their quality, the peak would not occur -- it develops because we exploit the most rich/economically beneficial resources first.

The occurrence of mineral resources, in terms of their quality, follows a broadly logistic/parabolic function (also called a 'parabolic fractal' distribution). By mining the richest sources of minerals first you "create" the potential for a peak in supply because, as you move down the quality curve a small reduction in quality creates a large change in the availability of the resource, but also a proportionate increase in the energy/infrastructure required to produce it. This redefines not only the physical availability of the identified resource, but also the economics and net energy of the supply process.

It's our economic relationship to the factors of mineral production, and how this relates to the probabilistic distribution of minerals, that defines the occurrence of a peak in production -- it's not an innate geophysical factor attributed to the reserve itself.

Comments? (he says, ducking behind the keyboard )

We can't "work all mineral reserves according to their spatial occurence." What if you live somewhere where the only mineral widely available is limestone, with small reserves of iron and coal? Are you suggesting that the coal is only worked very slowly but lots of the limestone is dug up even though it is not needed?

So I don't really understand what is being suggested. It doesn't really matter what order you exploit non-renewable resources in anyway...production will still eventually decline.

[ziggy12345]

I agree with what was quoted but what would be the alternative? Mine resources starting with the least accessible and then onto the richest and easily accessible?

If you want to build a 5 billion dollar platform you had better have a really big production rate to justify the CAPEX.

[mobbsey]

We can't "work all mineral reserves according to their spatial occurence." What if you live somewhere where the only mineral widely available is limestone, with small reserves of iron and coal?

A-ha! You have it. It's precisely because we work minerals by occurrence that a peak is inevitable.

In which case, what does that mean for the human system in general? Does it mean we have to accept the need for continual change, re-tooling/re-skilling to change the base of the economy, and if so how does that square with the inherent tendency to preserve both economic and social stasis within society as a whole?

If peaking is a part of the human demand for resources, just like any other biota, then that redefines the role/purposes of the human system if we wish to preserve stasis rather than staggering from crisis to crisis.

[UndercoverElephant]

We can't "work all mineral reserves according to their spatial occurence." What if you live somewhere where the only mineral widely available is limestone, with small reserves of iron and coal?

A-ha! You have it. It's precisely because we work minerals by occurrence that a peak is inevitable.

In which case, what does that mean for the human system in general? Does it mean we have to accept the need for continual change, re-tooling/re-skilling to change the base of the economy, and if so how does that square with the inherent tendency to preserve both economic and social stasis within society as a whole?

If peaking is a part of the human demand for resources, just like any other biota, then that redefines the role/purposes of the human system if we wish to preserve stasis rather than staggering from crisis to crisis.

Peaking only applies to the consumption of non-renewable resources, and humans are pretty much the only species which uses non-renewable resources. There are a few exceptions to this (e.g. a salt-lick in cave or a clearing may eventually be exhausted) but basically this is a human-specific problem.

What it means is that we should be very wary of becoming economically dependent on any sort of non-renewable resource. We have worked under the assumption that by the time the crunch came, our descendents would have figured out a technological means of escaping from it. This turns out to have been a very foolish and dangerous assumption.

[PS_RalphW]

Humans are like any other animal. We exploit the environment we are born into to maximise our genetic inheritance (Generally speaking - Some individual humans have been infected with social memes which have a degree of restraint in them).

We maximise genetic inheritance by maximising population, which means exploiting the energy sources in our environment at the fastest possible rate to get ahead of the genetic competition. It is impossible for evolution to overcome this trait, because there will always be changing
environments and energy pockets to be exploited. Social memes similarly cannot completely overcome the genetic trait either, except in constrained environments like island cultures, where there are few energy pockets.

Hence it is inevitable that we will suffer overshoot and collapse as long as energy pockets are available to be exploited, and similarly we will continue to degrade our environment until it is unable to sustain human life. Either that, or the few human survivors after collapse genetically modify themselves into something more sustainable.

[UndercoverElephant]

Just to expand on that...

There is a reason why (most) other species never end up dependent on non-renewable resources. It is because in most species the vast majority of behaviour is pre-programmed by biology rather than being learned - it is the result of biological rather than cultural evolution. Biological evolution on non-microscopic scales does not operate fast enough to produce a species which depends on non-renewable resources, because the pool of accessible resources will be exhausted long before the new species has had time to emerge. Cultural evolution, which includes human technological evolution, operates much faster. So the only species which end up dependent on non-renewable resources are those which are capable of culturally adapting to take advantage of some resource glut. Creatures like rats or racoons can do this to some extent, but humans have made it their #1 survival strategy.

[DominicJ]

UE
I'm afraid its simply not the case that other animals restrain themselves.
Theres an uninhabited scottish island, with a population of feral sheep.
The population goes through boom and bust cycles constantly.
(cant find a link and cant remember much detail).

No animal plots years or generations ahead with any reliability.

We arent geneticaly dependant on oil, if we went back to hunter/gatherer with flint spears, we'd survive as a species, we'd just suffer a population collapse, like the sheep.

[UndercoverElephant]

UE
I'm afraid its simply not the case that other animals restrain themselves.

That is not what I said other animals do. I said they do not consume non-renewable resources, not that they voluntarily restrain themselves from doing so. If red deer could burn coal to keep warm in the winter then they'd do so.

Theres an uninhabited scottish island, with a population of feral sheep.
The population goes through boom and bust cycles constantly.
(cant find a link and cant remember much detail).

And how did the sheep get there? Humans put them there.

Also, grass is not a non-renewable resource. This example is of the problems caused by invasive species, both to themselves and to the ecosystem they have invaded. This occurs all the time on islands.

We arent geneticaly dependant on oil...

No. We are culturally and economically dependent on it.

[Keepz]

We have worked under the assumption that by the time the crunch came, our descendents would have figured out a technological means of escaping from it. This turns out to have been a very foolish and dangerous assumption.

Says who? There are loads of technologies under development, some of them very well advanced, which will enable us to move away from fossil fuel use as and when we have to.

[Keela]

We have worked under the assumption that by the time the crunch came, our descendents would have figured out a technological means of escaping from it. This turns out to have been a very foolish and dangerous assumption.

Says who? There are loads of technologies under development, some of them very well advanced, which will enable us to move away from fossil fuel use as and when we have to.

Um.... Not sure at all Keepz.

I'm not sure when it will happen, but I'm pretty certain that a fossil fuel resource crash will lead to a huge global population crash. I might not be around to see it, perhaps my kids may even get by. But in my view the crash will happen.

Yet would humans do any different given the opportunity again? Nah doubt it!

[ziggy12345]

Says who? There are loads of technologies under development, some of them very well advanced, which will enable us to move away from fossil fuel use as and when we have to.

What bed time stories have you been reading Keepz? I suppose you think Hydrogen is a good idea for cars?

[DominicJ]

UE
Over a long enough time line, oil is renewable.
Just like Grass.

Peak Grass to a sheep is exactly the same as peak oil to us.

Nor are humans the only method of species invasion.
South America used to have mega fauna like India and Africa, then a causeway between the North and South American Continents formed, and south American Mega Fauna were wiped out as the northern species moved south.

[PS_RalphW]

I like to quote my own back of the envelope calculation for the renewable rate of exploitation of crude oil.

Assuming a 100 million year replacement cycle, and depending on the definition of the reserves/resource you use, and giving all 7000000000 of us an equal share, the allocation is somewhere between one thimble and a small cup per person.

per lifetime.

[UndercoverElephant]

UE
Over a long enough time line, oil is renewable.
Just like Grass.

No, that's not true. Most of the oil that existed on this planet was created at a time when conditions (both in terms of ecology and climate) were very different to today. There was no grass, for a start, because it hadn't evolved yet. Given the extreme length of time it would take for oil supplies to renew themselves, it is for all practical purposes non-renewable.

Peak Grass to a sheep is exactly the same as peak oil to us.

Definately not true. The sheep-grass situation is more similar to the human-fish situation - overgrazing is the equivalent of overfishing, not exhausting oil reserves. But even this comparison doesn't stand up to scrutiny, because sheep don't use industrialised technology to harvest grass at rates which would otherwise be impossible and which threaten grass species with extinction. Can you imagine sheep harvesting so much grass that the Earth's grasslands revert to fern cover because the grasses have been so severely overgrazed?

Nor are humans the only method of species invasion.

South America used to have mega fauna like India and Africa, then a causeway between the North and South American Continents formed, and south American Mega Fauna were wiped out as the northern species moved south.

Yes this sometimes happens. I never said it didn't.