The implications of the model are controversial. Some petroleum economists, such as Michael Lynch, argue that the Hubbert curve with a sharp peak is inapplicable globally due to the differences in oil reserves, political and military leverage, demand, and trade partnerships between countries and regions.

Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri point out that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995, based on oil production data available at that time. Maugeri claims that nearly all of the estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is (supposedly) huge and the costs of extraction, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue. The ratio between proven oil reserves and current production has constantly improved, passing from 20 years in 1948 to 35 years in 1972 and reaching about 40 years in 2003. These improvements occurred even with low investment in new exploration and upgrading technology due to the low oil prices during the last 20 years.

More generally, the supply of oil may be somewhat elastic in both the short term and the long term. Higher prices may encourage greater production and the use of more expensive extraction approaches. Over time, the current higher oil prices may well cause increased investment. However, absent added reserves or alternative sources, this may only delay the peak, rather than eliminating the peak altogether, and accelerate the depletion of reserves.

Proponents of "abiotic oil" are also skeptical of statistical analyses containing, as a given, "fossil" origin theories of petroleum.

Part of the current debate revolves around energy policy, and whether to shift funding to increasing fuel efficiency, and alternative energy sources like solar and nuclear power. However, it should be noted that these two energy sources are not replacements for liquid motor fuels. Campbell's critics, like Michael Lynch, argue that his research data is sloppy. They point to the date of the coming peak, which was initially projected to occur by 2000, but has now been pushed back to 2010. However, Campbell and his supporters insist that when the peak occurs is not as important as the realization that the peak is coming. His most vocal critic has been Freddy Hutter. Throughout 2001-2003, in his monthly newsletters, Campbell maintained that his 1996 prediction of a peak in 2000 was unchallenged, despite Hutter's alerts of increasing production levels. Finally in his April 2004 Newsletter, Campbell relented and shifted the peak to 2010. Later this was brought forward to 2007 but in October 2005, was shifted back to 2010. These shifts between predicted dates occur because of the systemic lack of accurate oil reserve data--with no truly accurate data we will not know when the peak occurs.

Another controversy was the status of the Hubbert Peak of conventional oil. Hutter claimed throughout 2004 that Campbell's own data illustrated that the Peak had passed unceremoniously in the Spring of 2004. The ASPO Newsletter continued to show the extraction peak in 2005 and/or 2006. Finally in August of 2005, Campbell again relented and began publishing that indeed the Peak had passed in 2004.

Further, the "gloom and doom" scenarios constructed by peak oil proponents are said to fail to consider the proven feasability of backstop technologies such as ethanol-based fuels, coal liquefaction, and other substitutes for crude oil. Coal liquefaction in particular becomes economically feasable, according to some estimates, at a sustained oil price of more than $32/barrel- a price slightly less than half the market price as of March 2006. Peak oil proponents point out that such technologies are much more costly than conventional oil and claim that they cannot be produced in sufficient quantities to replace declining supplies of conventional oil.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
delicious | digg | reddit | magnoliacom | newsvine | furl | google | yahoo