Simple explicatii
 
Drumul spre viitor ne duce intr-un zid. Destinul nostru pare clar:
O explozie demografica care declanseaza un haos social
 si imprastie moartea si cvasi-anihilarea speciilor.
Supravietuirea noastra e o chestiune de 25, 50, poate 100 de ani.  Jacques-Yves Cousteau

In primul rând trebuie sa lamurim câteva aspecte simple despre petrol.

Exista mai multe feluri de petrol. Cel care ne intereseaza se numeste petrol conventional si este usor de extras. Mai exista petrol de mare adâncime in oceane, petrol greu ( tar sands, bitum, oil shale) si hidrati ai metanului. De fiecare data când vedeti o estimare uitati-va bine dupa cuvintele "petrol conventional" (conventional oil) pentru ca multi amesteca petrolul greu (mai multe categorii de petrol imposibil de extras la ora actuala in mod economic viabil) in galeata estimarilor optimiste despre cât petrol mai e diponibil.

Apoi exista problema a ce masori si unde, ca sa tragi o granita intre petrolul conventional si neconventional si cum sa tratezi lichidele derivate din gaz natural. Definitiile neclare si practica raportarii dubioase ingroasa perdeaua de fum si mai mult.

In scurt timp economia globala va ramâne "fara gaz" pe masura ce toate resursele de energie fosila isi incep declinul. Putem sa discutam la nesfârsit despre data exacta când acest lucru se va intâmpla dar ceea ce e sigur e ca sfârsitul energiei fosile e aproape si acest sfârsit anunta si inchierea economiei globale

Bineinteles ca exista optimisti si pesimisti. Extremele, ca intodeauna, sunt excluse. Cei care vorbesc despre petrolul abundent care va tâsnii din conducte pâna dupa 2100 sunt la fel de inconstienti ca si cei care spun ca civilizatia se va termina in timpul vietii noastre.

Ramân temperatii, impartiti si ei in doua categorii: optimisti si pesimisti.  Diferenta intre estimarile lor e de mai putin de 2 decenii. Pesimistii spun ca productia petrolului a inceput deja sa decada sau va incepe in curând, cel mult 2007, optimistii spun ca asta se va intâmpla dupa 2025-2030.

Datele realiste prezentate de prima echipa si mai ales semnele vizibile din ultimul an si jumatate pun sub semnul intrebarii entuziasmul celor care nu vad inca fundul butoiului cu petrol.

Problema e complicata apoi de nenumaratele echipe cu interese din cele mai diverse: politic, marketing, economie mondiala, etc, echipe ce au de partea lor mass-media. E adevarat ca subiectul e "fierbinte" dar nimeni parca nu vrea sa se friga. Incearca sa-i spui americanului obisnuit ca trebuie sa-si schimbe radical felul sau de viata. In rau. "The American way of life" e mai mult decât o vorba. E un crez. Jimmy Carter a incercat asta in 1979 si acum e privit ca cel mai prost presedinte pe care l-a avut America dupa JFK. E privit mai rau decât Nixon chiar.

Din pacate e foarte greu pentru un adult sa analizeze, sa inteleaga si mai ales sa accepte schimbarea fundamentala din viitorul nostru apropiat. Si e normal pentru ca petrolul e adânc inradacinat in societatea noastra. 95% din comertul mondial are legatura directa sau indirecta cu petrolul sau produsele derivate din petrol. Aproape 500.000 de produse. Intre 44% si 53%, depinde de sezon, din comertul mondial (ca cifra de afaceri) este reprezentat de un singur articol : hidrocarburi. Adica jumatate din suma invârtita in jurul globului de-a lungul unui an cumpara sau vinde petrol sau derivate.

Campbell are o anecdota despre cât de greu pricep oamenii chiar daca au o oarecare cultura tehnica:

"Un prieten a incercat recent sa ma asigure ca exista inca petrol nedescoperit in SUA cel putin la fel de mult cât a fost extras deja. Având in vedere ca petrolul a fost descoperit acum 150 de ani in SUA, inseamna ca mai avem petrol pentru inca 150 de ani. N-am reusit sa-l conving ca daca ar fii adevarat, abia ar fii suficient pentru inca 10 ani".

Calculele simple câteodata sunt greu de facut. Sau de acceptat.

"Pesimisti" folosesc date tehnice (de cele mai multe ori "imprumutate" de la companiile petroliere - sa nu uitam ca vorbim de fosti angajati ) iar "optimistii" folosesc date "politice" - publicate prin tot felul de jurnale, date de obicei "aranjate". (vezi OPEC realitate si iluzie ) Diferenta e destul de mare, in jur de 400-500 Gbarili, o cantitate suficienta umanitatii pentru 12-14 ani la consumul actual. In ultimii ani optimisti au inceput sa scada din aceasta diferenta pe masura ce semnele evidente ale declinului incep sa apara peste tot in lume. Mai grav este ca si pesimisti au scazut numerele aproape in aceiasi cantitate in asa fel incât diferenta aproape s-a pastrat.

America a atins punctul de maxim in extractia petrolului din resurse propii in 1971, prima tara din lume care s-a lovit de scaderea productiei, moment de surpriza totala pentru americani care nu au crezut deloc in previziunile lui King Hubert, geofizicianul care anuntase cu un deceniu inainte data la care se va produce evenimentul. Atunci, in punctul de maxim, America producea 9,5 milioane barili pe zi, apoi cu toate ca si-a cvadruplat numarul de puturi a ajuns la 7,5 milioane de barili. Astazi SUA produce 3,5 milioane barili pe zi. Când productia scade, declinul urmeaza indiferent de marirea numarului de puturi. De fapt cu cât scoti mai mult si mai repede, cu atât se termina mai urgent.

In România privatizarea Petrom va aduce o scumpire cu ~ 70 - 80% a carburantului odata cu alinierea la preturile europene, peste care vine scumpirea produsa de pretul ridicat al barilului de petrol. In 2003-2004 pretul carburantilor românesti s-a pastrat oarecum neschimbat cu toate ca pretul barilului de petrol pe piata internationala a crescut neincetat.

Pentru 2004 pretul pentru petrol crud  in SUA negociat de importatori en-grosisti este de 37.45 $ / baril pentru iunie si 36.54 pentru septembrie. Inainte de inceperea razboiului in Irak preturile se invârteau pe la 26-27 $ (sfârsitul lui 2002) Tabel XLS (mare) La sfârsitul razboiului adica in mai 2003 pretul se invârtea pe la 29 $, si toata lumea era sigura ca pretul o sa scada dramatic pâna la 20 $. N-ar fii fost prima oara. Dar pretul a urcat. Constant. Media ultimului an este 32,21 $.  Acum aproape nimeni nu mai crede ca pretul o sa scada. (Aceste preturi sunt pentru crudul SUA. Preturile europene sunt cu 2-4 $ mai mici, datorita transportului.)

Câteva din cele mai vizibile intrebuintari ale petrolului

In a growth based economy such as ours, a 1-5% shortfall in oil supply will cause a recession.  A 5-10% shortfall will cause a second Great Depression. The effects of  a shortfall greater than 10-15% are almost too horrible to imagine.

 

Once we pass the peak, oil production will decline by 1.5-3% per year. Oil demand, however, will continue to increase by 1.5-3% per year. This means that one year post-peak, we will experience a 3-6% shortfall in oil supply.

 

 

 

Living off our Capital and the Limits of Technology

We now live in very fortunate times. In the combination of the versatility of end uses, energy density, ease of handling and storage, and being now able to produce it relatively inexpensively and in great volume, there is no energy source comparable to oil. But living in a chiefly petroleum fueled economy and in a fossil fuel economy in general, we are living off our capital, which is unsustainable.

In a very perceptive volume for the time it was written, British physicist C. G. Darwin (1952) recounts the several "revolutions" which have taken place in the progress of human history, such as the most recent one, the Industrial Revolution. He states there is one more revolution coming:

 

The fifth revolution will come when we have spent the stores of coal and oil that have been accumulating in the earth during hundreds of millions of years...it is obvious that there will be a very great difference in ways of life...a man has to alter his way of life considerably, when, after living for years on his capital, he suddenly finds he has to earn any money he wants to spend...The change may justly be called a revolution, but it differs from all the preceding ones in that there is no likelihood of its leading to increase in population, but even perhaps to the reverse.

 

There is a popular belief that somehow technology can indefinitely rescue the human race from whatever predicament it may get itself into--solve all problems. Pimentel and Giampietro (1994) have warned:

 

Technology cannot substitute for essential natural resources such as food, forests, land, water, energy, and biodiversity...we must be realistic as to what technology can and cannot do to help humans feed themselves and to provide other essential resources.

 

Bartlett (1994) has observed:

 

There will always be popular and persuasive technological optimists who believe that population increases are good, and who believe that the human mind has unlimited capacity to find technological solutions to all problems of crowding, environmental destruction, and resource shortages. These technological optimists are usually not biological or physical scientists. Politicians and business people tend to be eager disciples of the technological optimists.

 

This is not to say that technology cannot continue to produce many good things in the future. But we must not confuse technology which uses resources with creating the resources. The world is finite; there are limits. Nature has given us a great inheritance formed in the Earth by myriad geological processes over millions of years consisting of a huge variety of resources, including, importantly now, fossil fuels. This is a nonrenewable bank account against which we have been writing larger and larger checks as the needs of an increasingly industrialized growing world population have been supplied.

But eventually this account will be exhausted, and we will have to bestir ourselves to get out and live on current income, the first need of which apparently will be to replace oil. How many people can a renewable energy resource income support? And what will be the resources we will use to do this?

Cohen (1995) has discussed this, as is the title of his book, "How Many People Can the Earth support?" But, perhaps the question should be phrased "how many people should the Earth support?"

The optimum size of this population can hardly be estimated now with any great degree of accuracy, but some suggestions have been made. Pimentel and Pimentel (1996) believe that a world population of two billion might be sustained in some reasonable degree of affluence. Other estimates have been made and it is significant that most of them determine a figure which is substantially smaller than is the size of today's population.

 

"Overshoot" simply means that we have exceeded the "carrying capacity" of Earth:
If just the present world population of 6,3 billion people were to live at current North American ecological standards (say 4.5 ha/person), a reasonable first approximation of the total productive land requirement would be 30 billion ha (assuming present technology). However, there are only just over 13 billion ha of land on Earth, of which only 8.8 billion are ecologically productive cropland, pasture, or forest (1.5 ha/person). In short, we would need an additional two planet Earths to accommodate the increased ecological load of people alive today. If the population were to stabilize at between 10 and 11 billion sometime in the next century, five additional Earths would be needed, all else being equal -- and this just to maintain the present rate of ecological decline.
 

Decreasing energy profits set up a positive feedback loop: since oil is used directly or indirectly in everything, as it becomes less "energy efficient", everything else will also become less "energy efficient" -- including other forms of energy. For example, oil provides about 50% of the fuel used in coal extraction.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/0615/6112084a.htm http://reports.guardian.co.uk/articles/1998/7/26/13026.html