by Carlhole » Thu 02 Dec 2010, 20:13:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xenophobe', 'A')s far as the 1970's peak....we have already reversed a Hubbertian decline, and provided another peak of natural gas in the US some 4 decades after the Hubbert declared peak.
Gorelick really digs into the history and mathematical
inadequacy of Hubbert's approach. It's well known that Hubbert had to
assume a given quantity of oil before any of his subsequent analysis could be relevant at all. Hubbert had to continually revise his total oil endowment estimates upwards to make anything else in his method work - just as Colin Campbell also has. It's the main flaw in this line of reasoning.
Campbell likes to make the analysis of Guiness in a beer glass. The glass is full at first but soon is ultimately consumed. But calculating future production of oil, which has so many complex factors affecting it, is not so simple.
It's one thing to recognize that oil is finite; quite another to calculate how much there is and how long it will last. So many other economic and technological factors such as substitution, innovation and adaptation go into that calculation, factors that affect future production in ways that no one in the present can possibly quantify. One of the best explications of Hubbert's method came from Ken Deffeyes in
Hubbert's Peak, which was also a compelling read, at least for me at the time (1999). But the flaw in Hubbert's approach was still alive and kicking in Deffeyes 5 decades after Hubbert's Shell Oil presentation. Such a flaw is not obvious to the gentle reader, newly exposed to this stuff.
In fact, I hope Ken Deffeyes does write something about Gorelick's
Oil Panic and the Global Crisis: Predictions and Myths; being a former university professor, geologist, mathmetician, petroleum expert, and former student and colleague of M.King Hubbert himself, Deffeyes would be the natural one to respond to Gorelick's treatment of the peak oil debate in its entirety - especially since most who read
Oil Panic can see that Hubbert approach is not quite all there.
I believe Hubbert was making a rational, scientifically earnest attempt in 1956 to grapple with future energy use, future oil depletion - and to point towards our probable nuclear energy future - all very mainstream stuff for the 50's and its visions of what lay ahead. But his approach just seems like some form of quasi-mathematical divination to me now.
As Stephen Gorelick said, the peak oil community, which really depends upon the mathematics, has been quite subdued in its response to his book. I don't think its one you can easily toss off as hogwash, particularly since the reader is allowed to draw his/her own conclusions after reading both sides of the argument (I like that form of presentation; it is sensible and a lot harder to attack).