Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal

PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

M King Hubbert's 1956 Paper That Started It All

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Re: How many of you have read King Hubbert's original 1956 p

Unread postby FreddyH » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 16:45:41

RedStateGreen wrote:As far as I could tell, he was trying to get people to pay attention, because the oil companies needed to prepare for things to be different. Seems to have worked; US oil companies are now all over the world, still making money. :lol: :roll:

Well that certainly is a nice piece of revisionism. The truth is that in the immediate years after Hubbert's releases in the mid seventies, the IEA & DOE had virtual flat line twenty year targets for oil production until 1995. They expected electrical generation to be overwhelmed by the nuclear and hydro setors.

But alas, the environmentalists roadblocked both paths and insisted that to protect us all from the inevitable meltdowns and the loss of thirteen owls, policy makers should stick to coal and natural gas.

The actions of these environmental zealots led to exceess in fossil fuel based power generation and three generations of gasoline/diesel powered vehicles.

In effect, the greenies traded nuclear winter and electric cars for GHG's and the threat of rapid climate change. Well done, tree huggers ... won the battle and lost the war! Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits)
User avatar
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon 14 Jan 2008, 04:00:00
Location: The Yukon

Re: How many of you have read King Hubbert's original 1956 p

Unread postby static66 » Wed 05 Mar 2008, 20:26:42

If anyones interested, I have copies of the February, 4 1949 American Association for the Advancement of Science (triple-a S)
newsletter with the first essay being "Energy from Fossil Fuels" by M. King Hubbert in which he explains population dynamics and goes into hydro-power etc... he is listed as the associate director of exploration for Shell oil.... shows the peak charts for the first time in a semi public publication.... very collectible and will wow your PO group the next time you meet......
"The word statistics originated in the German STATISTIKS, "State Arithmetic."
User avatar
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri 07 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Location: under the satellites

Re: How many of you have read King Hubbert's original 1956 p

Unread postby Peak_Yeast » Wed 15 May 2013, 21:55:32

BigTex wrote:Hubbert's obvious optimism about nuclear is interesting, I agree.

It's funny that no one considers this part of his forecast to be especially insightful (or even seems to be aware of it).

Peak oil with a suitable replacement is a whole different matter from peak oil with nothing but doom to replace it with.

From my understanding of the text and graphs of nuclear power Hubbert considers it very speculative - and states that its provided that we can bring nuclear power under control. How extensive that control is - is obviously far beyond what we today are able to build whatever the precise reasons are. He also mentions thorium - so its not just one nuclear material he is thinking about.

I would also say that the fact that the graph just rises to twice the power from fossil fuels and just stays there for 1000s of years indicates to me that he is not trying to make an actual fit and possibly thinks this is obvious since its so blatantly done.

So he is not putting too much credit into it himself?
"If democracy is the least bad form of government - then why dont we try it for real?"
User avatar
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013, 17:54:38
Location: Denmark

Re: M King Hubbert's 1956 Paper That Started It All

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 14 Apr 2014, 12:13:15

The following quote is congressional testimony by Dr. Kenneth Deffeyes in front of Representative Roscoe Bartlett from

Questions and answers wrote: REP. BARTLETT: I get widely divergent estimates of how much fissionable uranium is left in the world, from 30 years to 200 years. Before we can really have an effective dialogue about how to address this problem, we need to have an agreement on what the problem is. And there is just so much difference of opinion out there, and I talked to the National Academy of Sciences. They would be delighted. We need to find the money for them. We need an honest broker somewhere that tells us roughly what the truth is because we have widely divergent opinions now as to how much fissionable uranium is out there.

MR. DEFFEYES: I suggest you look at the Scientific American for January 1980, Deffeyes and MacGregor, on the world uranium supply.

REP. BARTLETT: And how much is there, sir?

MR. DEFFEYES: Every time you drop the ore grade by a factor of 10, you find about 300 times as much uranium, so that going down to the ore grade of – going down through the ore grades continues to increase the supply. But just about the time we were writing that Scientific American article, these enormously rich deposits, and big deposits in Australia and Canada sort of blew away our early estimates and we had to quickly increase the estimates. There are deposits in Saskatchewan so rich that the miners can’t be in the same room as the uranium, where the uranium is being mined. They mine it by remote control. So at the moment we’re swimming in uranium, but the Deffeyes-MacGregor piece, which comes out with a Hubbard-like curve, says that, no, we can go on down, and specifically we don’t need a breeder reactor.

REP. BARTLETT: If we don’t need the breeder reactor, that’s good news because if you had to go to the breeder reactor you would borrow some problems that you don’t have with fissionable uranium.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
Posts: 4645
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: M King Hubbert's 1956 Paper That Started It All

Unread postby DesuMaiden » Tue 14 Apr 2015, 16:47:04

Thank you very much for this post.
History repeats itself. Just everytime with different characters and players.
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
Posts: 851
Joined: Mon 06 Oct 2014, 16:00:31

Re: M King Hubbert's 1956 Paper That Started It All

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 14 Apr 2015, 18:01:33

"...which comes out with a Hubbard-like curve,." I wonder if he understands that "Hubbard-like curve" is a meaningless term. First, the silly obvious: his name was Hubbert...not Hubbard. Second, if one does want to use the same statistical approach as Hubbert used for US oil fields on U mines then the curve would only contain U mines in known trends. Hubbert clearly states in his report that his prediction was for the peaking of those US oil trends which have not only been identified but were very mature by the time he did his work. More to the point he states that his projection did not include any new trends yet to be discover and developed. IOW he did not predict the peaking of US oil production...he predicted the peaking of those trends upon which his statistics were based. And his prediction has been proven very accurate to this day: those fields he analyzed are producing very little oil just as he projected they would. IOW neither the Deep Water trends nor the shales plays were part of his statistical analysis. That production was not part of his original model.

So to carry over to the U story: what is the current output of those ORIGINAL trends that were used to make the prediction? New field discoveries in Aussiland or anywhere else don't disprove those original prediction if those projections were solely based upon known U trends.
User avatar
Posts: 11284
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS


Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests