FWIW, I don't think M. King Hubbert's ideas were wrong. If technology had remained static rather than advancing at an incredible rate after digital data processing became an available tool, then I think oil production would have declined on the curve predicted by MKH. But computing enabled advances in both oil exploration and oil extraction that kept the production curve rising. I believe traditional and conventional oil production peaked in 2008 for the world - but at the Rockman is fond of reminding us, the terms traditional and conventional are fairly meaningless.
Still, that oil took millions of years to cook from the remains of ancient algaes and krill and plankton of all types that came to rest on the seabeds of oceans that have changed considerably since then. The total supply is finite and no matter what the advances in exploration and extraction, eventually we will reach the end of the age of oil. My own oft-repeated prediction is on the order of 120 years. I did NOT say "the close order of 120 years", meaning I would be surprised if it happens in less than 12 years or more than 1200 years.
I simply think that attempting to forecast the end of oil any closer than that, given the quality of the data we work with, is foolishness. Not only will exploration and extraction technology advance further at a difficult to anticipate and uneven rate, but there are extraneous factors like overpopulation, conventional warfare, and advances in renewable energy that enter into economic model prediction. Nor does the certain fact that the KSA and other major producers use anal extraction of both oil reserve data and actual oil production figures help the accuracy of such predictions.
Then there is the whole matter of will the oil production decline resemble the smooth bell curve that MKH predicted or the Seneca Cliff. I'd say the jury is still out on that, since production is still increasing. (YES, recent production has obsoleted even this chart.)