[FreddyH]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RedStateGreen', 'A')s far as I could tell, he was trying to get people to pay attention, because the oil companies needed to prepare for things to be different. Seems to have worked; US oil companies are now all over the world, still making money.

[static66]

If anyones interested, I have copies of the February, 4 1949 American Association for the Advancement of Science (triple-a S)
newsletter with the first essay being "Energy from Fossil Fuels" by M. King Hubbert in which he explains population dynamics and goes into hydro-power etc... he is listed as the associate director of exploration for Shell oil.... shows the peak charts for the first time in a semi public publication.... very collectible and will wow your PO group the next time you meet......

[Peak_Yeast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'H')ubbert's obvious optimism about nuclear is interesting, I agree.

It's funny that no one considers this part of his forecast to be especially insightful (or even seems to be aware of it).

Peak oil with a suitable replacement is a whole different matter from peak oil with nothing but doom to replace it with.

[Subjectivist]

The following quote is congressional testimony by Dr. Kenneth Deffeyes in front of Representative Roscoe Bartlett from
post189887.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Questions and answers', '
') REP. BARTLETT: I get widely divergent estimates of how much fissionable uranium is left in the world, from 30 years to 200 years. Before we can really have an effective dialogue about how to address this problem, we need to have an agreement on what the problem is. And there is just so much difference of opinion out there, and I talked to the National Academy of Sciences. They would be delighted. We need to find the money for them. We need an honest broker somewhere that tells us roughly what the truth is because we have widely divergent opinions now as to how much fissionable uranium is out there.

MR. DEFFEYES: I suggest you look at the Scientific American for January 1980, Deffeyes and MacGregor, on the world uranium supply.

REP. BARTLETT: And how much is there, sir?

MR. DEFFEYES: Every time you drop the ore grade by a factor of 10, you find about 300 times as much uranium, so that going down to the ore grade of – going down through the ore grades continues to increase the supply. But just about the time we were writing that Scientific American article, these enormously rich deposits, and big deposits in Australia and Canada sort of blew away our early estimates and we had to quickly increase the estimates. There are deposits in Saskatchewan so rich that the miners can’t be in the same room as the uranium, where the uranium is being mined. They mine it by remote control. So at the moment we’re swimming in uranium, but the Deffeyes-MacGregor piece, which comes out with a Hubbard-like curve, says that, no, we can go on down, and specifically we don’t need a breeder reactor.

REP. BARTLETT: If we don’t need the breeder reactor, that’s good news because if you had to go to the breeder reactor you would borrow some problems that you don’t have with fissionable uranium.

[DesuMaiden]

Thank you very much for this post.

[ROCKMAN]

"...which comes out with a Hubbard-like curve,." I wonder if he understands that "Hubbard-like curve" is a meaningless term. First, the silly obvious: his name was Hubbert...not Hubbard. Second, if one does want to use the same statistical approach as Hubbert used for US oil fields on U mines then the curve would only contain U mines in known trends. Hubbert clearly states in his report that his prediction was for the peaking of those US oil trends which have not only been identified but were very mature by the time he did his work. More to the point he states that his projection did not include any new trends yet to be discover and developed. IOW he did not predict the peaking of US oil production...he predicted the peaking of those trends upon which his statistics were based. And his prediction has been proven very accurate to this day: those fields he analyzed are producing very little oil just as he projected they would. IOW neither the Deep Water trends nor the shales plays were part of his statistical analysis. That production was not part of his original model.

So to carry over to the U story: what is the current output of those ORIGINAL trends that were used to make the prediction? New field discoveries in Aussiland or anywhere else don't disprove those original prediction if those projections were solely based upon known U trends.