[eclipse]

Hubbert was wrong?

As we all know, Hubbert accurately came up with the concept of a "double peak" — one in discovery followed by a peak in production — and then in 1956 accurately predicted America's peak oil production peak for 1970. But Hubbert was way off on the VOLUMES of WORLD peak oil. Hubbert predicted total world oil extraction would peak at 1/3 of today's rates.

My response to Hubbert critics is "BIG DEAL!" Consider the following points:-

1. Attacking Hubbert is irrelevant! We are not relying on Hubbert's claims for WORLD peak oil. Instead we are relying on a consensus of modern oil and gas insiders sounding the alarm, a consensus that just keeps growing with each year. These oil men are thoroughly acquainted with modern drilling technology. They know all the bells and whistles of modern oil tech, and have a 40 year history of the profoundly declining discoveries. They can do basic math, which reveals a world where 54 out of 65 oil producing countries have already peaked, some decades ago. So for CERA and other groups to attack Hubbert's projections of HALF A CENTURY AGO they are ignoring the modern data, and attacking a Straw Man.

2. Hubbert WAS correct on the American peak, which was far closer to his point of reference both in time and in the technological development of oil production. We are indebted to him for coming up with the concept and demonstrating that peak oil can be accurately predicted when closer to the event. As noted above, we have modern oil people much closer to our event sounding the alarm NOW, and the situation just becomes clearer and clearer. (Basically, if a maths-o-phobe like myself can even do a few basic sums and see that there's a problem, it's pretty clear.)

3. The fact of our vastly superior oil production technology — allowing production 3 times as high as Hubbert's original projections — should not allow us to smugly disregard Hubbert's warnings when you consider the following sobering fact: we are 3 times more hooked! We have had an extra 50 years to build more suburbia, exurbia, and sprawl. We have expanded our car dependent lifestyle outside of our main urban centers. Over the last 50 years suburban growth has exploded outwards, paving over farmer's fields and changing the countryside for generations to come.

Boasting that Hubbert was wrong is like a heroin addict boasting that there is no problem because their doctor was wrong. "What would he know, he said I'd die a long time ago — on a third as much as I'm shooting up today." In 1950, there were under 3 billion people — now there are 6.5 and most of them are dependent on oil for food. Forget the Iraq "oil for food" scandal, we are all caught up in a worldwide "oil for food" program called modern agriculture. We need oil for our plastics and chemicals, car transport in suburban sprawl, and our very food. We are utterly hooked. Withdrawal is going to hurt.

So yes, Hubbert was wrong — the final problem is 3 times worse!

[Bleep]

Is this Current Energy News?

[eclipse]

Sorry, just some meditations on the latest attack by CERA... if a mod wants to move this to the appropriate forum that's OK.

Should I have put this under the Hydrocarbon depletion forum?

Cheers.

[ClubOfRomeII]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '
')
So yes, Hubbert was wrong — the final problem is 3 times worse!

[eclipse]

??? Sorry, too cryptic for me. What did you mean?

[kokoda]

Technology can make fools of us.

As far as oil production is concerned however the one certainty is that at some point oil will peak.

Whether it was last year, or this year, or a couple of decades from now is uncertain.

[TorrKing]

Also, will not increasing the extraction rates by the help of technology, make the fall even faster?

[Concerned]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kokoda', 'T')echnology can make fools of us.

As far as oil production is concerned however the one certainty is that at some point oil will peak.

Whether it was last year, or this year, or a couple of decades from now is uncertain.

[MD]

I am betting that peak production is now, and that the downslope will be gentle since $100+ oil will bring currently marginal reserves into production.

This of course assumes stable economic and political systems. I prefer to assume such since the alternative is . . . uncomfortable.

[ClubOfRomeII]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '?')?? Sorry, too cryptic for me. What did you mean?

[Concerned]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClubOfRomeII', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '?')?? Sorry, too cryptic for me. What did you mean?

[ClubOfRomeII]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClubOfRomeII', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '?')?? Sorry, too cryptic for me. What did you mean?

[pup55]

I still think the most impressive thing about Hubbert's work is that he did it before the days of electronic calculators and computers. It must have taken weeks to do one calculation.

If he were around today, it is hard to tell how much more accurate he would have been, or what his conclusions would have been.

[jeezlouise]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClubOfRomeII', 'F')or that matter, I wonder if Hubbert was even a Doomer?

[ClubOfRomeII]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'I') still think the most impressive thing about Hubbert's work is that he did it before the days of electronic calculators and computers. It must have taken weeks to do one calculation.

[ClubOfRomeII]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jeezlouise', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')e simply assessed the amount of nuclear material available, calculated the energy contained therein, and divided consumption by time to calculate how long such a source could power society. Measured in THOUSANDS of years I might add.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', ' ')Hubbert was wrong?

As we all know, Hubbert accurately came up with the concept of a "double peak" — one in discovery followed by a peak in production — and then in 1956 accurately predicted America's peak oil production peak for 1970. But Hubbert was way off on the VOLUMES of WORLD peak oil. Hubbert predicted total world oil extraction would peak at 1/3 of today's rates.

[Concerned]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClubOfRomeII', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClubOfRomeII', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '?')?? Sorry, too cryptic for me. What did you mean?

[ClubOfRomeII]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CORII', '
')Hubberts view was alot more macro than this particular statement.
His entire view of Peak oil was that it only had to last long enough to fire up the nukes. His plan was interrupted during the 70's of course.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClubOfRomeII', 'W')hich is why I pay close attention to Hubberts original work, where alot of this starts. He has his solution built right into the original work, and its very curious that people lift the entire Peak oil piece out ( good or bad ) and then completely ignore the solution he included in the same paper. Matter of fact, he spent more words on the solution than the peak theory itself.