I've been reading Douglas Reynolds compilation of papers entitled "Scatiry and Growth Considering Oil and Energy: An Alternative Neo-Classical View." The set of papers available in it can be read here [link]. In particular, many might take interest in his paper (Chapter 5) on Hubbert Curves and Reserve Production Ratios.
To be brief, this paper, along with similar work by Reynolds, confirms my opinion that the world is in store for a series of oil shocks, not a geological hubbert peak. The reasoning is simple:
1. The US has always maintained a reserve to production ratio of approximately ten. Lower ratios (higher production) damage fields. The US, as one would expect, tried to suck the oil out of the fields as quickly as possible.
2. OPEC countries have maintained much higher reserve production ratios. They've not invested. They've invested what was necessary to get oil moving out of the ground, and then used the income to solve other problems. They're not in the oil business. They're in the social welfare business (and line the pockets of the few business).
3. Hubbert curves as produced by most if not all are not geological in nature, they are geological/economic/political in nature. Using them to predict the future is not very useful.
4. World oil reserves have not been produced at anywhere near the rate that would have been possible if they had been developed as aggressively as those in the US.
5. The practical implication: consumption will soon run into production limits that are NOT GEOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS but INVESTMENT CONSTRAINTS.
6. This does not imply that we're all in the clear. It means that the world is not producing oil as efficiently and quickly as it could, which will lead to much earlier shocks and much earlier economic dislocation.
In summary, Reynold's thesis is that the world is not producing oil as effectively as it could. That implies that shocks will come sooner than predicted by geological considerations. The shocks will push the restructing process and pain earlier that would occur if the world had produced along a true geological curve.
The work of Campbell et. al., as far as I can tell, does not take any of this into account. There is more investigation to be performed. But it all agrees with my general belief that we are headed for a long muddle.
And here's the problem:
1. It is still a problem. But
2. It may turn out to be more of a long muddle than a long emergency, and
3. We all know it's much easier to sell books called "The Long Emergency" than "The Long Muddle", particularly after that whole Y2K thing turned out to be a farce.
People have to make up their own minds. They can believe in conspiracy theories, determine ways in which the die off will occur, make plans to off people of a particular color or nationality, discuss the tradeoffs of fiat currencies versus fiat gold (the govt can, by fiat, take your gold, so give up on thinking it has stable value).
Or people can come up with practical steps to help the world deal with what very well may be a long muddle. The end of growth at some point. Decline at some point. Dislocation. Etc.
Again, the problem is: The latter takes real work. It's much more fun to mindless speculate in the former.