It would have been amazing if he was that accurate, I would put this down to a fluke as the data required for this sort of prediction would have been mostly unavailable at that time."As far as I recall..." I suggest you re-read Hubbert's original 1956 paper (available online), wherein you will find that, as I say, he predicted global oil production would peak in 2005.
I was actually referring to his (I think) 1974 prediction. I think it was then that the year 1995 was produced, even back then I would have expected it to be innacurate, even he was cautious about this one.
'knowing' about them does not mean he could have factored them in, he could not possibly have known about the effectiveness to which they could have been exploited. This would have been very erroneous data.So when he's right (as in 1970) he's right and when he's wrong (as in 2005) he's still right. Hubbert knew about shale and tar sands, the so-called unconventional sources, and factored their future exploitation into his (faulty) calculations to arrive at 2005 as the date for global peak production.
So, it seems you are saying that the Americans stopped pumping their oil for economic reasons then, this is a new one to me and I would like to read further, can you help me with some sources.No, they were physically constrained to produce less, insofar as they had already de-commissioned much of the domestic production infrastructure, as it became progressively more uneconomic trying to compete with cheaper foreign imports, which government had allowed to flood their home market during the latter half of the 1960s.
Presumably then, their oil stocks are still quite high, and are waiting to be pumped when the right economic climate ensues.