by rockdoc123 » Sat 17 Feb 2018, 23:22:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')S: You are apparently so obvious to the real world that you've been able to post here for 13 years without ever figuring out what Peak Oil means or understanding what in heck people here were talking about. Or maybe you knew once but now you've forgotten what it means. In either case, that shows a truly remarkable lack of comprehension on your part. Congratulations! That amount of obliviousness is just amazing!!
look dipshit, I knew about Peak oil back when you were the mistake your parents made. One of my thesis supervisors worked for Hubbert and another one was there at the API conference when Hubbert first unveiled the idea. Those of us who have worked in the industry for many decades have known about the concept for far longer than this website has ever been around.
MY point is and has always been that given the information that Hubbert had at the time he was bang on with his prediction of a peak for conventional oil in 1970. Are you now arguing that oil from conventional reservoirs did not peak in 1970? Are you arguing that oil is not a finite reserve? It seems you are arguing that Hubbert should have been expected to have a crystal ball in which he could see all the new discoveries and unconventional oil. He was very clear in his paper that his model was based on an assumption of ultimate oil reserves to be discovered. He didn't make that assessment, others did. His contribution was in showing that given a finite resource there has to be a predictable peak and life. Are you arguing that is incorrect?
What it seems you are arguing is that Hubbert didn't have the right URR data for all oil in the US including that in unconventional reservoirs. Please explain to us how he failed by not including data that there was no possible way without some sort of time machine he could have had?
Or is it just the stupid view that there can only be one peak. I showed you already how Hubbert and others have indicated several peaks are possible.
If you can tear apart Hubberts paper so so, otherwise why not just shut the hell up.