I am right and Hubbert was wrong

[Simon de Montfort]

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.

You don't get it, do you? It's not only that Hubbert's estimate of the amount of global (and US) oil reserves have in fact been proven to have been an immense underestimate, but that his entire approach and method were fundamentally flawed. They were flawed and inadequate because they failed to give anything like sufficient weight to the effect of continuing future improvements in exploration, discovery and extraction technique, or to consider the probability (or even possibility) that such technological progress would utterly invalidate his estimates of the potential total of global (and US) oil that would become available for extraction in the future.

In short, Hubbert failed to think outside the box.

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

I don't want Hubbert to do anything. He died in 1989 and I have nothing against the man personally. But if one is going to make projections about the future of an industry, which was part of his job at the time, then one should take into consideration all of the factors most likely to impact significantly upon such an industry, particularly technological advances, and give them the weight they deserve. He minimized the probable impact of technological advances and this grave error invalidated his theory, notwithstanding the purely fortuitous (and temporary) 1970 peak in American crude oil output, which was mistakenly regarded by some as verifying the theory. The 1970 peak in US output proved nothing about resource depletion, but should be viewed in the context of the price mechanism of the global market for oil which had emerged by the late 1960s and the glut in supply from overseas which made home produced oil uncompetitive in price, in the absence of adequate tariff barriers and other import controls.

[LilyThePink]

You don't get it, do you? It's not only that Hubbert's estimate of the amount of global (and US) oil reserves have in fact been proven to have been an immense underestimate, but that his entire approach and method were fundamentally flawed. They were flawed and inadequate because they failed to give anything like sufficient weight to the effect of continuing future improvements in exploration, discovery and extraction technique, or to consider the probability (or even possibility) that such technological progress would utterly invalidate his estimates of the potential total of global (and US) oil that would become available for extraction in the future.

In short, Hubbert failed to think outside the box.

I don't think he intended to 'think outside the box', he was a fairly careful and technical researcher. His findings, that were later expanded on by others, were buried, quite unremarkably, inside a report that appeared to be about something else, I don't think even he thought they were remarkable.

You seem to expect him to show extraordinary foresight, that would be difficult for almost anyone to display, especially considering how technological change has accelerated in the last few decades

His statements about US reserves were fairly accurate given his current data and current trends, and it is only hindsight (from quite a distance too), that enables to move the goalposts in such a spectacular way.

I don't want Hubbert to do anything. He died in 1989 and I have nothing against the man personally. But if one is going to make projections about the future of an industry, which was part of his job at the time, then one should take into consideration all of the factors most likely to impact significantly upon such an industry, particularly technological advances, and give them the weight they deserve. He minimized the probable impact of technological advances and this grave error invalidated his theory, notwithstanding the purely fortuitous (and temporary) 1970 peak in American crude oil output, which was mistakenly regarded by some as verifying the theory. The 1970 peak in US output proved nothing about resource depletion, but should be viewed in the context of the price mechanism of the global market for oil which had emerged by the late 1960s and the glut in supply from overseas which made home produced oil uncompetitive in price, in the absence of adequate tariff barriers and other import controls.

Again, you seem to want him to show extraordinary foresight (about economic trends too), but this is a really big ask. His 'minimising of possible technological advances' was a display of caution, and was quite the correct thing to do, ie to minimise speculation, he did speculate slightly, and properly highlighted the fact when he did this.

[Simon de Montfort]

I don't think he intended to 'think outside the box', he was a fairly careful and technical researcher. His findings, that were later expanded on by others, were buried, quite unremarkably, inside a report that appeared to be about something else, I don't think even he thought they were remarkable.

His conclusions about resource depletion were unwarrantable and have proven to be false. Common sense, if not thinking outside the box, should have suggested to him that he had got his conclusions wrong.

You seem to expect him to show extraordinary foresight, that would be difficult for almost anyone to display, especially considering how technological change has accelerated in the last few decades

We are taliking about the past here. Hubbert had the example of the Industrial Revolution and the rapidly growing pace of technological progress which had occurred since that time, to guide his prognostications about the future of the oil industry. If he chose to ignore, or to minimize (as he did) the probable contribution such progress was likely to make to US and global oil reserves, then that was a serious failing in his approach and method. He showed no such qualms about predicting a bright future for the nuclear energy industry.

His statements about US reserves were fairly accurate given his current data and current trends, and it is only hindsight (from quite a distance too), that enables to move the goalposts in such a spectacular way.

Garbage in garbage out. His data was wildly inaccurate and so his conclusions were also wildly inaccurate. They might have been less inaccurate if he had both thought outside the box and exercised more common sense.

Again, you seem to want him to show extraordinary foresight (about economic trends too), but this is a really big ask. His 'minimising of possible technological advances' was a display of caution, and was quite the correct thing to do, ie to minimise speculation, he did speculate slightly, and properly highlighted the fact when he did this.

I don't want him to do anything. The man has been dead these last twenty years and more.

Minimizing (not possible, but) probable technological advances was not the correct thing to do at all. In fact, Hubbert's assumption that technological advances would not continue to enlarge the size of potential global oil reserves, by making extraction more efficient, for example, was, in view of the history of the oil industry and other similar industries, both speculative and naive. Nowhere have I stated (or implied) that Hubbert should have been able to foresee economic trends.

I get the impression that you are arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than for any constructive purpose. I do not get the impression that you know much about the subject under discussion.

[LilyThePink]

His conclusions about resource depletion were unwarrantable and have proven to be false. Common sense, if not thinking outside the box, should have suggested to him that he had got his conclusions wrong.

We are taliking about the past here. Hubbert had the example of the Industrial Revolution and the rapidly growing pace of technological progress which had occurred since that time, to guide his prognostications about the future of the oil industry. If he chose to ignore, or to minimize (as he did) the probable contribution such progress was likely to make to US and global oil reserves, then that was a serious failing in his approach and method. He showed no such qualms about predicting a bright future for the nuclear energy industry.

Common sense relies mainly on present data and present trends, and a minimum of speculation. You now seem to expect him to make projections based on change since the industrial revolution, as if there are comparisons to be made regarding the accelerating rate technological change

Garbage in garbage out. His data was wildly inaccurate and so his conclusions were also wildly inaccurate. They might have been less inaccurate if he had both thought outside the box and exercised more common sense.

Again, the phrases 'thinking outside the box' and 'common sense' seem uneasy bedfellows.

Minimizing (not possible, but) probable technological advances was not the correct thing to do at all. In fact, Hubbert's assumption that technological advances would not continue to enlarge the size of potential global oil reserves, by making extraction more efficient, for example, was, in view of the history of the oil industry and other similar industries, both speculative and naive. Nowhere have I stated (or implied) that Hubbert should have been able to foresee economic trends.

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.

Looks pretty much like a shot at highlighting economic trends for the peaking of US oil production here (and now you seem to expect him to be an industrial historian too).

I get the impression that you are arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than for any constructive purpose. I do not get the impression that you know much about the subject under discussion.

I've gained some personal impressions too, but I see no point in expressing them. I think my purpose is to maintain the primacy of context when looking at historical figures and their thoughts, probably extending from my interest in the history of science You seem to have too high expectations of what seems to me a fairly conservative character.

[Simon de Montfort]

Common sense relies mainly on present data and present trends, and a minimum of speculation. You now seem to expect him to make projections based on change since the industrial revolution, as if there are comparisons to be made regarding the accelerating rate technological change.

You do not know what common sense means if you think that. Somehow this does not surprise me.

Again, the phrases 'thinking outside the box' and 'common sense' seem uneasy bedfellows.

Only to someone who does not know what common sense really means.

Looks pretty much like a shot at highlighting economic trends for the peaking of US oil production here (and now you seem to expect him to be an industrial historian too).

Not at all. As I have said and now repeat, nowhere have I stated that Hubbert should have foreseen economic trends.

I've gained some personal impressions too, but I see no point in expressing them. I think my purpose is to maintain the primacy of context when looking at historical figures and their thoughts, probably extending from my interest in the history of science You seem to have too high expectations of what seems to me a fairly conservative character.

What an inappropriate phrase "the primacy of context" is in this context, particularly in view of your continuing reference to a man (viz, Hubbert) who died more than twenty years ago in the present tense. I hope you continue to use it, however, since it suits you so well: it's both intellectually pretentious and fundamentally void of content.

[LilyThePink]

You do not know what common sense means if you think that. Somehow this does not surprise me.

Only to someone who does not know what common sense really means.

Well, this one is hardly likely to be nailed down to a defintion, I would say that it has something to do with rationality and the 'average' person. However that is still quite vague don't you think.

Not at all. As I have said and now repeat, nowhere have I stated that Hubbert should have foreseen economic trends.

Then why do you speak of the economic factors of oil production negating his early seventies prediction of a US peak then? (yes, I know you didn't say that exactly either)

What an inappropriate phrase "the primacy of context" is in this context, particularly in view of your continuing reference to a man (viz, Hubbert) who died more than twenty years ago in the present tense. I hope you continue to use it, however, since it suits you so well: it's both intellectually pretentious and fundamentally void of content.

Primacy of context, primacy of context, primacy of context.... la la la. I think I quite like it actually.

Of course, the usual way to determine if a phrase is 'void of content' is to the query the person using it, with the context being given a degree of primacy of course.
I do say some dumb stuff too, I know. Yet again, the above method is usually fruitful in determining this.

[Simon de Montfort]

Then why do you speak of the economic factors of oil production negating his early seventies prediction of a US peak then? (yes, I know you didn't say that exactly either)

Economic factors (viz, the much cheaper oil that became available on the world market) did not "negate" Hubbert's prediction of a peak in US ('lower 48', ie, excluding Alaska and Hawaii) crude oil production. On the contrary, it APPEARED to verify it because home production was scaled down after 1970 as it became uncompetitive in price with foreign imports.

It was not only Hubbert's minimization of the likely effect on the future availability of a plentiful supply of oil of technological progress that invalidated his global (and US) peak oil theory. The theory was also invalidated by Hubbert's failure to draw the correct conclusions from the fact that in 1956 most of the world had not been surveyed for accessible oil deposits. As a geologist Hubbert was aware of this and he should, acting on the precautionary principle, have surmised that as yet undiscovered reserves of oil, in regions of the globe that had yet to be surveyed for it, might well (as has in fact proven to be the case) make a nonsense of his estimate of accessible global oil deposits, and consequently also make a nonsense of his prediction of a date around 2000 as the year of global peak oil production.

[LilyThePink]

Economic factors (viz, the much cheaper oil that became available on the world market) did not "negate" Hubbert's prediction of a peak in US ('lower 48', ie, excluding Alaska and Hawaii) crude oil production. On the contrary, it APPEARED to verify it because home production was scaled down after 1970 as it became uncompetitive in price with foreign imports.

You have implied that his prediction of the 70's peak was incorrect, ie, it only APPEARED to have been verified.

It was not only Hubbert's minimization of the likely effect on the future availability of a plentiful supply of oil of technological progress that invalidated his global (and US) peak oil theory. The theory was also invalidated by Hubbert's failure to draw the correct conclusions from the fact that in 1956 most of the world had not been surveyed for accessible oil deposits. As a geologist Hubbert was aware of this and he should, acting on the precautionary principle, have surmised that as yet undiscovered reserves of oil, in regions of the globe that had yet to be surveyed for it, might well (as has in fact proven to be the case) make a nonsense of his estimate of accessible global oil deposits, and consequently also make a nonsense of his prediction of a date around 2000 as the year of global peak oil production.

He did use the precautionary principle, he made a very conservative estimate, and underestimated the reserves based on current data. These seems to be a conflict here, you want him to be cautious and take a wild guess.

[Simon de Montfort]

You have implied that his prediction of the 70's peak was incorrect, ie, it only APPEARED to have been verified.

Hubbert's PREDICTION of a peak in 'lower 48' crude oil production in 1970 turned out to be accurate. But not for the reason he had stated in his theory, ie, resource depletion. Consequently, Hubbert's peak theory was not verified in 1970, though it may have APPEARED to the superficial observer that it had been.

He did use the precautionary principle, he made a very conservative estimate, and underestimated the reserves based on current data. These seems to be a conflict here, you want him to be cautious and take a wild guess.

No, Hubbert did not use the precautionary principle, because he predicted a major socio-economic change (ie, an imminent shortage of crude oil) on the basis of what he knew to be very inadequate and incomplete data.

[LilyThePink]

Hubbert's PREDICTION of a peak in 'lower 48' crude oil production in 1970 turned out to be accurate. But not for the reason he had stated in his theory, ie, resource depletion. Consequently, Hubbert's peak theory was not verified in 1970, though it may have APPEARED to the superficial observer that it had been.

This cause is a theory though, it is an interesting theory, but one that rests on the assumption that his assessment of total initial US oil reserves was wrong.

No, Hubbert did not use the precautionary principle, because he predicted a major socio-economic change (ie, an imminent shortage of crude oil) on the basis of what he knew to be very inadequate and incomplete data.

Wow.... now you are saying he was a sociologist too (but a failed one), this on top of being a failed economist and failed industrial historian.

Actually, his predictions of the peaking of oil were very vanilla and unremarkable. He just laid things out as he saw them in a fairly objective fashion. It was later folks (and possibly a few at the time) who spun them into something a bit more dramatic.