The decline in the number of new giant fields in recent decades and the need to compensate the shortfall in the currently productive fields, which is estimated to be between 4 and 6.5 percent annually; in other words, it is necessary to find new oil fields each year which have a production capacity of approximately 3 million barrels per day, in order to compensate for the oil extracted. Also, most of the new oil is coming from submerged oil fields and from very deep geological layers, and therefore this oil is very costly to extract.


These factors, according to the claims made by the group mentioned above, have led to a renewed interest in alternative fuels, or to further investments in renewable alternative energies. Nonetheless, the proponents of this view fear that these alternative energies or new fuels will not be made available in time to compensate for the decreased oil supplies, which might lead to a global economic crisis.

Moreover, opinions differ among the group advocating for the “peak oil” theory about whether the world has already reached this peak, while also differing in what regards the timeframe in which the current production levels can be maintained, or the production decline rates.

In fact, American investor Matthew Simmons had stirred a major controversy in 2005 regarding the peak oil theory when he published his book “Twilight in the Desert”. The issue was again raised earlier this month when British newspaper “The Guardian” published a statement given by an official at the International Energy Agency (IEA), without mentioning his name, on the eve of the agency’s publication of its annual report “International Energy Outlook”. In the statement, the official claimed that Washington had pressured the IEA to conceal the facts about the decline in the volume of oil reserves in order to preserve American interests, and the United States’ major role in this industry, and also in order to prevent a worldwide panic that would cause an economic catastrophe.