I am right and Hubbert was wrong

[LilyThePink]

This shows how little you really understand oil mining technology. Once an oil mine is capped it often becomes uneconomic to open again.

So are you saying they capped their wells instead of pumping less

"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.

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.
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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

Presumably then, their oil stocks are still quite high, and are waiting to be pumped when the right economic climate ensues.

[LilyThePink]

SdM,

I'm having trouble locating a source for your repeated claims that Hubbert (rightly or wrongly) predicted a peak of world oil production in 2005. Can you provide a source for this please.

[Simon de Montfort]

So are you saying they capped their wells instead of pumping less

American oil producers began capping their wells and progressively reducing investment in new domestic fields from the late 1960s onwards, in response to the cheaper oil available from foreign sources, eg, the Middle East. Naturally, there is a time lag between reducing investment and the effect this has on output. And by 1973, when the foreign imports from OPEC were curtailed, it was not possible rapidly to compensate for the shortfall by increasing domestic American production, hence the temporary spike in world oil prices.

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.

The year Hubbert quoted in his 1956 paper was 2000, rather than 2005, but he did say that it would vary depending upon the rate of production. What he failed to provide a caveat for was the possibility, or rather probability, that his estimate of global oil reserves was wildly inaccurate due to its omitting to provide for both the impact of dicoveries of new oil fields and also the effect upon proven reserves of technological advances.

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.

See my last comment.

'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.

You make my point for me. However, not knowing about future improvements in technique did not seem to inhibit him from predicting the imminent shrinking of the oil industry and its progressive supersession by nuclear energy.

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.

The Wuerthner article (post # 2 on this thread) is a good place to begin.

Presumably then, their oil stocks are still quite high, and are waiting to be pumped when the right economic climate ensues.

It depends on your definition of "oil stocks". I maintain that known global reserves of oil are probably sufficient, combined with improving extraction techniques and new finds, to maintain the current Western average rate of consumption for generations, if not for hundreds of years.

[Simon de Montfort]

SdM,

I'm having trouble locating a source for your repeated claims that Hubbert (rightly or wrongly) predicted a peak of world oil production in 2005. Can you provide a source for this please.

See the post immediately before this one.

[ron]

SdM,

I'm having trouble locating a source for your repeated claims that Hubbert (rightly or wrongly) predicted a peak of world oil production in 2005. Can you provide a source for this please.

I've missed why the focus is on Hubbert but this appallingly laid out but very informative site shows his 1956 prediction, a later one of his and many others that have failed. The latest multi-model average of valid predictions is giving us a peak oil date of 2027, in 2005 the date was 2020.

You can question some of his interpretations but it is a good resource for raw data too.

http://trendlines.ca/free/peakoil/Sc...os.htm#invalid

[LilyThePink]

I've missed why the focus is on Hubbert but this appallingly laid out but very informative site shows his 1956 prediction, a later one of his and many others that have failed. The latest multi-model average of valid predictions is giving us a peak oil date of 2027, in 2005 the date was 2020.

You can question some of his interpretations but it is a good resource for raw data too.

http://trendlines.ca/free/peakoil/Sc...os.htm#invalid

It seems to be SdM that is focussing on Hubbert..

His only really correct prediction was for American oil to peak in the early 1970's. His prediction for world oil was out, but he was understandably cautious about and gave plenty of reasons.
His 1974 prediction for world oil was also out, be again he was cautious, and gave the caveat that this was only correct given current trends.

I'm a little confused, but SdM seems to be saying that American oil did not peak for physical reasons, but for economical ones, which seems to suggest that they have reserves left that have not been tapped yet.

Thanks for the link.

[LilyThePink]

The year Hubbert quoted in his 1956 paper was 2000, rather than 2005, but he did say that it would vary depending upon the rate of production. What he failed to provide a caveat for was the possibility, or rather probability, that his estimate of global oil reserves was wildly inaccurate due to its omitting to provide for both the impact of dicoveries of new oil fields and also the effect upon proven reserves of technological advances.

He said that his projections were based on 'proved' (sic) reserves, which pretty much acted as a caveat, and on an estimate of of world crude total reserves. I don't think anyone expected these to be accurate.

It depends on your definition of "oil stocks". I maintain that known global reserves of oil are probably sufficient, combined with improving extraction techniques and new finds, to maintain the current Western average rate of consumption for generations, if not for hundreds of years.

The definition has changed, all the original projections concerned crude oil, and so, when referring to the Americans decommissioning their wells in the 1970's, this is the definition I would use.
By the current defintion, 'oil' stocks are again huge. But the extraction of these seems to depend a great deal on a healthy world economy, and not one based on thin air (and ironically, this funny new oil)

[Simon de Montfort]

It seems to be SdM that is focussing on Hubbert..

A focus on Hubbert in a thread entitled 'I am right and Hubbert was wrong' seems entirely reasonable to me.

His only really correct prediction was for American oil to peak in the early 1970's. His prediction for world oil was out, but he was understandably cautious about and gave plenty of reasons.

Grossly underestimating firstly: the size of global oil reserves; secondly, the probability of substantial new finds; and thirdly, the impact of technological advances in extraction methods, were each failings of Hubbert and his method.

His 1974 prediction for world oil was also out, be again he was cautious, and gave the caveat that this was only correct given current trends.

So he struck lucky with his 1956 prediction of a peak in American crude output in 1970. It had nothing to do with the soundness of his method but was due to economic factors of which he had taken no account.

I'm a little confused, but SdM seems to be saying that American oil did not peak for physical reasons, but for economical ones, which seems to suggest that they have reserves left that have not been tapped yet.

That is correct. I refer you to the Wuerthner article, again.

[Sheepy]

Using up others supplies first gives you a huge advantage later on.

[LilyThePink]

Grossly underestimating firstly: the size of global oil reserves; secondly, the probability of substantial new finds; and thirdly, the impact of technological advances in extraction methods, were each failings of Hubbert and his method.

So, his estimates were off (for future world reserves etc), this is hardly surprising given the time. the fact that these were acknowledged as estimates made his methods sound.

So he struck lucky with his 1956 prediction of a peak in American crude output in 1970. It had nothing to do with the soundness of his method but was due to economic factors of which he had taken no account.

It seems you want this man to guess at future economic trends too, a big ask.