| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Economy |
| 'Hubbert's Peak' is a failed theory |
| 2005-11-02 |
| EFL: M. King Hubbert, a geologist working for Shell Oil in Houston, is responsible for the concept of "peak production." In 1956, Hubbert produced a graph that looked like a normal "bell curve." The idea was that oil production worldwide would increase until it reached a peak, followed by a decline to zero, the point where we run out of oil. Also known as "Hubbert's Peak," the graph was inherent in the very concept of oil as a fossil fuel. In other words, if oil comes from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs, then inevitably we must run out of oil. After all, there only were a finite number of ancient trees and dinosaurs, so the oil resulting from them must be finite as well. Craig Smith and I wrote "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" to take exception with the Fossil-Fuel Theory. We argue the science of oil as an abiotic, natural product that the Earth generates on a constant basis. The abiotic oil theory has been central to Soviet science since the end of World War II. Looking deep within the Earth for oil, Russian has advanced from being a relatively oil-poor country in the 1950s, to being today the world's second largest exporter of oil, contending strongly for first position with Saudi Arabia. Hubbert's graph predicted that oil production would "peak" in 1970, and that it would taper off from there until 2050, when we would have used up all the oil that ever was. Unfortunately for Hubbert, these predictions were flat wrong. Today, the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that we have 1.28 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves worldwide, more than ever before in human history, despite decades of increased usage. More... |
| Posted by:BrerRabbit |
| #6 Hubert's Peak Oil is false although not for the reasons stated. Hubert's error was to assume that hydrocarbons were divided into 'oil' and not oil. In reality there is a continium from highly volatile (natural gas) to solid (anthracite). Known hydrocarbon reserves will last many hundreds of years. We just have to start exploiting the reserves away from the sweet spot of traditional oil that will flow to the surface moreorless unaided, such as the tar sands and oil shales. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-11-02 20:42 |
| #5 If you don't get the results you want, manipulate the data... now the part Hubbert didn't listen to, but make sure that you hide it well. |
| Posted by: Clith Cregum5085 2005-11-02 20:13 |
| #4 We will never use all the oil in the world. |
| Posted by: Spolump Elmomble5827 2005-11-02 17:05 |
| #3 Like most liberal and "green" theories, it fails with facts and the passage of time. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-11-02 16:39 |
| #2 You missed the money line. Kenneth Deffeyes, a professor emeritus at Princeton University, and a 1950's Shell Oil colleague of M. King Hubbert, has given us excellent insight into how Hubbert came up with his famous "peak curve." According to Deffeyes, it turns out that Hubbert's famous peak was basically a "back of the envelope drawing," a pre-conceived intuition into which Hubbert jammed the available data. In writing his book, "Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage," Deffeyes admits on Page 135 that Hubbert first reached his conclusion and then searched for raw data and methods to support his conclusion Same scientific methodology used for 'Global Warming caused by humans'. First establish the conclusion and then jam any data into to it to justify it. |
| Posted by: Omomoque Crereter5428 2005-11-02 16:34 |
| #1 Yep, makes perfect sense in a steady state universe. The good news is what's happening on the anti-earth, geysers of anti-oil are exploding in anti-front yards where the anti=car is. The gasoline bounty is +$5.99 galllon. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-11-02 16:33 |