20 ms·

He predicted that U.S. oil production would peak, probably in the early 1970s, and then decline. It would resemble a bell curve. If M. King Hubbert were aliv

He predicted that U.S. oil production would peak, probably in the early 1970s, and then decline. It would resemble a bell curve. If M. King Hubbert were alive today—he died in 1989—would he admit defeat? Probably not No shit he wouldn't admit defeat. He was absolutely 100% correct. US oil production did peak in the 70's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States#Production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_Stat...

baddox 12y ago
In context, wasn't he implying that oil production would peak forever, not just that it would drop in the 1970s?
- AReallyGoodName 12y ago
  Well i don't see US oil production ever exceeding 1970 levels despite a few minor upticks on an otherwise clearly downwards trending line. Until oil production exceeds that 1970's level you can't say he was wrong. I think the main issue is that the article confuses worldwide oil production with US oil production. US oil production undeniably peaked in the 1970's. Worldwide oil production did not. The claims made about peak oil were specifically made about US oil production. The claims were proven to be 100% correct.
  - Daishiman 12y ago
    His formula's not just right in US oil production, but basically any country in the world with substantial production levels, and for all intents and purposes right in world production of conventionals. The past decade truly marked the global shift to the end of cheap oil prices. So given the possibility for margin of error, it was a fantastically good estimate.
desdiv 12y ago
It's still a little premature to make that prediction. This graph (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/US_Crude_Oil_Production_and_Imports.svg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/US_Crude_...) from that Wikipedia article shows a dead cat bounce. It's still too early to say whether that bounce will top the record production number in the 70's.
- AReallyGoodName 12y ago
  I just see it from the other point of view. I see it as being too early to say that he was wrong. The article seems way too harsh on someone who made a prediction over 50 years ago that has stood the test of time flawlessly. He was objectively correct when looking at actual data. The only counter point actually given in the article to peak oil is that it might be theoretically possible for production to beat those 1970's levels which isn't much of a counterpoint.

baddox 12y ago

In context, wasn't he implying that oil production would peak forever, not just that it would drop in the 1970s?

AReallyGoodName 12y ago
Well i don't see US oil production ever exceeding 1970 levels despite a few minor upticks on an otherwise clearly downwards trending line. Until oil production exceeds that 1970's level you can't say he was wrong. I think the main issue is that the article confuses worldwide oil production with US oil production. US oil production undeniably peaked in the 1970's. Worldwide oil production did not. The claims made about peak oil were specifically made about US oil production. The claims were proven to be 100% correct.
- Daishiman 12y ago
  His formula's not just right in US oil production, but basically any country in the world with substantial production levels, and for all intents and purposes right in world production of conventionals. The past decade truly marked the global shift to the end of cheap oil prices. So given the possibility for margin of error, it was a fantastically good estimate.

desdiv 12y ago

It's still a little premature to make that prediction. This graph (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/US_Crude_Oil_Production_and_Imports.svg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/US_Crude_...) from that Wikipedia article shows a dead cat bounce. It's still too early to say whether that bounce will top the record production number in the 70's.

AReallyGoodName 12y ago
I just see it from the other point of view. I see it as being too early to say that he was wrong. The article seems way too harsh on someone who made a prediction over 50 years ago that has stood the test of time flawlessly. He was objectively correct when looking at actual data. The only counter point actually given in the article to peak oil is that it might be theoretically possible for production to beat those 1970's levels which isn't much of a counterpoint.