free html hit counter Peak Oil Debunked: 280. ANOTHER DEBUNKER EMERGES

Sunday, April 09, 2006

280. ANOTHER DEBUNKER EMERGES

Toby Hemenway is a permaculturist who has written a good piece called "Apocalypse, Not" debunking peak oil hysteria. This has been widely discussed, but it certainly deserves a place here:
There is no doubt that oil is running out. But to believe that it will surely bring the end of the world, you must believe that:
  1. Our demand for oil is unchangeable and is not significantly affected by price.
  2. We are so badly addicted to oil that we will watch our civilization collapse rather than change our behavior.
  3. Significant oil conservation is not possible in the time frame
  4. Even with conservation, demand will be more than oil plus alternatives can possibly meet.
  5. Society is so fragile that it cannot withstand large shocks.
These are the significant beliefs needed to be a Peak Oil catastrophist. Each is false. Let's look at them.
I'll refer you to the article for specifics on these five points. However, Hemenway does raise an interesting, little-discussed point about the Hubbert curve (click image for a clearer view):

Hubbert’s US peak prediction was accurate, and the decline initially followed his curve. It has lately deviated significantly (see Figure 1, above)

[...]

Let’s engage in a little critical thinking about Hubbert’s curve. Domestic oil production began to fall sharply around 1970. Why the steep drop? If we’re blinded by theory, we’d say “because supply dried up” and leave it at that. But a careful thinker must look for other explanations that may have an effect. There are several: A major oil spill off California in 1969, the first Earth Day in 1970, and many other events spawned a rise in environmental consciousness in the 1970s, and soon, public outcry forced the US to block off-shore drilling and other sources of domestic oil because they damaged our environment. The 1973 Arab oil embargo sent prices skyward, and Americans bought small cars and turned down thermostats, squelching demand and thus domestic production. And, the 1960s and 1970s saw both the rise of the multinational corporation and Britain’s retreat from its Middle-Eastern colonies, a combination that encouraged the oil majors to abandon US oilfields and to enormously boost Mideast operations, where regulations were lax, labor cheap, and supplies huge.

Thus the sharp fall in US production, while affected by the depletion of some easy-to-drill domestic deposits, had many other causes. Today, lapsed US oil leases are being bought back by the oil majors, who are developing these deposits with new techniques. Congress has re-authorized off-shore drilling, and US production has stopped falling. We’re not on Hubbert’s curve any more.
This is a thought-provoking idea. How much of the U.S. decline after 1970 was due to geological constraints, and how much was due to political constraints, and the easier availability of oil elsewhere?
-- by JD

29 Comments:

At Sunday, April 9, 2006 at 7:33:00 PM PDT, Blogger sameu said...

I don't think Hubbert could forecast important geopolitical events by the methods and data he had.

But these events will had there effect undoubtly.

ow btw, I think the five points summed up there are all true.

Peak oil is mainly a sociological problem. People [i]will[/i] rather die then change their habbits.

Wasn't it Cheney who said the us way of life is non-negotiable? well they're dying right now in Iraq to sustain the american way of life.

 
At Sunday, April 9, 2006 at 8:00:00 PM PDT, Blogger JD said...

sameu,
That's the funny thing about PO pessimists. In my experience, you all admit at some point that we have the technology and ability to solve the problem. In retrospect, that's why it won't be surprising when we actually do solve the problem. Even you yourself admit that we can do it. You're just not fully accepting/digesting that fact yet.

 
At Sunday, April 9, 2006 at 8:17:00 PM PDT, Blogger sameu said...

ow but I do think we can solve the problem, from a technological point of view, it's doable

many technologies and techniques exists since decades and they are improving and getting cheaper etc

but I'll tell you something else. I once had a long discussion with a communist. And I must say, in theory, communism is great. But he was forgetting one very important thing. For the system to work he relied on the fact that people are good willing, nice, non-egocentric beings. It was a conditio sine qua non. But, and this may come as a shock to you, people in general are greedy, selfcentered, lasy son of bitches. Now, you'll say I'm a misantropic kind of guy. But 2000 years of history kind of proof me right.

And that's your and my problem. We know this shit can be solved, in theory. And I'm not a doomer; but you now, we are not the masses. We are not the billion plus chinese who long to upgrade their living standard, we're not the millions of americans who consume a quarter of the dialy oil production and so on. So yes, technological, alrighty, this sounds like a neat project, let's get to it. Sociologically, now there's a challenge.

 
At Sunday, April 9, 2006 at 8:29:00 PM PDT, Blogger sameu said...

and do excuse me for my writing errors
english is not my mother tongue

 
At Sunday, April 9, 2006 at 8:33:00 PM PDT, Blogger nick said...

I'm sorry JD, but is that graph for all of US production or just the lower 48? I know it says "US Annual Production", but most graphs when dealing with Hubbert only have lower 48 and I would just like to be sure I know what I'm looking at. Thanks

 
At Sunday, April 9, 2006 at 8:47:00 PM PDT, Blogger Rembrandt said...

Given the apprx. 3.5 billion barrels of maximum production this includes all US producing regions. The conclusion that these events influenced the curve of us production is not warranted given the shape of the curve. The odd trend of late times only shows up for the past few years, could just as well have been influenced by oil pricing now.

 
At Sunday, April 9, 2006 at 11:30:00 PM PDT, Blogger Gayle Washburn said...

...let the disinfo begin...

 
At Monday, April 10, 2006 at 1:21:00 AM PDT, Blogger Dom said...

After having read Hemenway on the weekend, I was once again positive about Life After Peak.

But since JD has to show the world that he's not alone in the way he thinks, then I HAVE to scrutinize Hemenway's article a bit more exactly.

Hemenway is making the same mistake that the doomers make. Take a curve and a graph and try to make a point that has nothing to do with the geology of the thing. It's just too easy to take every one of these graphs apart...

For instance, the graph for the US looks like a graph of all liquids for the lower 48 PLUS off-shore wells.

Meaning, the geographical area is being broadened with time. (The same thing you do when you include Alaska, meaning you change your definition as you go along. The same thing you do when you include "all liquids" - the definition always changes.) The chart with the UK is no different - Production there is a collection of Off-Shore regions. Basically it is a double graph of two independent regions, both with an almost perfect huberts curve. When they find something in the artic the same size? Then we'll have three humps on the graph.

But who cares???? And who cares if world oil production follows a perfect bell curve or not? There is simply a limitted amount of the stuff out there.

"If we’re blinded by theory, we’d say “because supply dried up” and leave it at that."
Guess what?! Supply started drying up the day we burned our first gallon.

Technological answers? Sure.
Change the definition of "oil"? Why not?
Blame politics or economics? If you want to.
Agree with Sameu? I certainly hope so. I tend to be a greedy bastard too.
Become a doomer? They have their points.
Become a cornucopian? They have their points.

Answer? (Try to) Be prepared!

 
At Monday, April 10, 2006 at 3:43:00 AM PDT, Blogger DC said...

This is a bit of a non sequitor, but check out the following article on US towns embracing a nuclear industry:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/us/10nuke.html?ei=5065&en=de2eb3c072dc14c7&ex=1145332800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

And so a business case exists for Nuclear Energy after all, Casandra!

 
At Monday, April 10, 2006 at 3:50:00 AM PDT, Blogger DC said...

"The conclusion that these events influenced the curve of us production is not warranted given the shape of the curve."

Only if you assume that these events didn't affect the peak observed in any way. Can you be certain that they only affected the backside of the production curve?

 
At Monday, April 10, 2006 at 9:36:00 AM PDT, Blogger allen said...

dom wrote:

But who cares???? And who cares if world oil production follows a perfect bell curve or not? There is simply a limitted amount of the stuff out there.

The Hubbert curve is supposed to be a predictive device. It's supposed to signal when we're past the peak of petroleum production.

When real production doesn't follow the curve that's an indication of the accuracy of the prediction and that is important. It's the difference between "Oh my God! We'll run out in a year" and "Oh my God! We'll run out in ten thousand years!"

That's a pretty important consideration, don't you think?

Guess what?! Supply started drying up the day we burned our first gallon.

That's also the day the benefits started flowing as well.

 
At Monday, April 10, 2006 at 12:55:00 PM PDT, Blogger Dom said...

allen wrote
When real production doesn't follow the curve that's an indication of the accuracy of the prediction and that is important.

Well, if you reread my post, you will notice that I "debunked" the accuracy of Hemenway's graphs. I may be wrong, simply because I don't know exactly what is in his graphs' data. But, after having seen enough of these graphs to make my supper reintroduce itself, I think I notice which statistics are behind them.

The problem with the graphs are that they do not represent FIXED definitions. The definition moves as the years go by.

US 48 plus Alaska has a double peak, for instance (1971 and 1985). Why? because these 2 entities really have nothing to do with each other - just like the double peak w/ Great Britain.

The Hubbert curve is supposed to be a predictive device. It's supposed to signal when we're past the peak of petroleum production.

Really?
I thought it was supposed to be a statistical device. (!)
It surely will give a SIGNAL when more than 50% of a defined entity (resource) has been consumed.

First of all, there has to be a fixed definition of what's being talked about. None of the reporting agencies have this fixed definition. In this sense, a conucopian like JD is right - we'll just change the "rules" (i.e. technology) so that Peak doesn't really matter. Conventional oil? What's that? Let's sell Mexican, Venizuelan and Canadian tar instead!

The "curve" on the other hand is really only a typical (meaning statistical!) way of depleting a fixed substance. There is absolutely no "must" to the way the substance is depleted. There are only probables. The one "probable" which fits your definition is that once we are past Peak, we will NEVER produce more than in the peak year. Unless, of course, you change the definition of what you're talking about. (Oil from Titan, for instance)

Summing up the entire game: There were ten units in the barrel and now there are only five. Hemenway and JD need to deny that in order to support their house of cards.

 
At Monday, April 10, 2006 at 2:21:00 PM PDT, Blogger dub_scratch said...

When real production doesn't follow the curve that's an indication of the accuracy of the prediction and that is important. It's the difference between "Oh my God! We'll run out in a year" and "Oh my God! We'll run out in ten thousand years!"

Allen, who's predicting a peak followed by running out completely in one year and who's predicting oil running out in ten thousand years? If this is an exaggeration in order to express your point, then point taken.

Being that the oil production curve is of whatever shape, no variation of the Hubbert bell works in favor of the cornucopian other than an early oil peak followed by a long slow decline. This in fact would mean that an early price signal would be followed with plenty of time and a stable economy in order to make the transition onto something else (sources developed from space exploitation technologies or fusion, for example). I wish more cornucopians would stop being deniers of the near peak scenario and would offer the plausible idea of the immanent oil peak with a modest decline, softened by non-conventional sources and other factors. That I think is the point JD highlighted in this article, meaning the peak will happen as the Hubertarians present, but their preditions on oil decline are not exactly proven as historical fact.

 
At Monday, April 10, 2006 at 3:43:00 PM PDT, Blogger allen said...

dom wrote:

Summing up the entire game: There were ten units in the barrel and now there are only five. Hemenway and JD need to deny that in order to support their house of cards.

Actually, they (and I) don't have to deny a damned thing.

Having offered up your bold insight that there were ten barrels, you're on the hook to explain the source of this tidbit of information. So? You want to let us all in on the source of your knowledge?

dub_scratch wrote:

Allen, who's predicting a peak followed by running out completely in one year and who's predicting oil running out in ten thousand years?

Deffyes et al. Peak oil is about predicting peak oil. That peak's inevitably in the near future not because there's some valid methodology for determining any production peak but because without having a peak to predict, and in the not-too-distant future as well, what's the point of bothering with peak oil?

The sun's going to go out some time in the future. Does it matter when? Of course it does. If it's next week then stocking up on warm clothing makes sense. If it occurs in ten billion years then I think I'll take a pass on the down booties and re-up my Netflix subscription.

Being that the oil production curve is of whatever shape, no variation of the Hubbert bell works in favor of the cornucopian other than an early oil peak followed by a long slow decline.

It's nice to know that there's some variation of the Hubbert curve that works in favor of us cornucopians. :-)

It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that I disagree though. I think that any production curve other then a vertical descent works in favor of us cornucopians not that I expect that or, in fact, any drop-off in production. At least not as a result of resource depletion.

 
At Monday, April 10, 2006 at 6:40:00 PM PDT, Blogger Freak said...

I think I just noticed something mildly amusing. I see peak oil cited as being certain that no higher production will occur on any year following it. but that Is the definition of "peak oil" not the actual occurance of a specific even or
concert of events, isn't it?
It's a little like saying if the glass is half past full than it will always be less than half full. The Irony in that is if it were argued that it were not the case, logic dictates that by definition it would be some event other than "peak oil".

I wish there was some analogue for correlating "peak oil" with peak energy or an upward curve of energy production, This whole debate could be served well by having a general reference index of comparable data.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 2:16:00 AM PDT, Blogger Roland said...

Peak energy doesn't exist. Unless the sun burns out, but even then.

Good point though.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 3:12:00 AM PDT, Blogger sameu said...

allen,

let's forget a moment about peak oil

let's say oil works like the gasoline tank of your car, on/off

at current production rates, how long can we pull this game off until all the oil is gone?

40 years? 50? maybe 60?

that's still in my timeframe and surely is in the timeframe of people getting born today

so please don't talk about thousand or even hundred years cause that's totally irrelevant

we're all going to face the music in our lifespan, no matter how many wrong prediction deffeyes has made and will make

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 5:23:00 AM PDT, Blogger Roland said...

I really don't think anybody will care much about oil in 60 years.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 1:48:00 PM PDT, Blogger Dom said...

Actually, they (and I) don't have to deny a damned thing.

Am I getting too close, allen?
No, you don't have to deny anything. You can continue babbling around the issue.

My guesstimate is that conventional oil peaked a couple years back. My guesstimate is that Deffeyes is exactly right. We are on/past Peak.

Now, are there 5.5 units left? 4.5 left? Hubert's point was that there are 10. All the blogs in the world will not change that fact.

I grew up as an oil producer in Ohio. Ohio peaked in 1893. Not bad, huh? The slope down was very gradual. We profitted greatly from 1973 til 1985. We never (in Ohio) produced nearly as much as in 1893, no matter how many wells we drilled...

btw Allen,
you attacked my conclusion, how about attacking my argument?

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 1:53:00 PM PDT, Blogger Dom said...

Roland wrote:
I really don't think anybody will care much about oil in 60 years.
:-)
That is, by the way, POs message.
Do you think we will have produced paradise by then or be back in the Middle Ages? On a scale of 1 to 10?

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 2:15:00 PM PDT, Blogger Nick said...

Dom,

It's all a question of the time frame, and a little luck. Clearly things are risky in the next few years - if the Middle East becomes embroiled in a Sunni-Shiite internicine war, oil supplies will be disrupted, and life will be difficult. But in the long-run, things are likely to be just fine.


Please keep in mind that in 2006 and 2007 wind is 40% of planned new generation! See http://www.nei.org/documents/Energy%20Markets%20Report.pdf, and please note that after 2007 wind falls off because that's outside wind's planning horizon - this is not a "projection" (implying use of judgement to identify trends in a comprehensive way) rather it's a compilation, or snapshot of current plans, which is necessarily incomplete. Consider it a chart of "capacity currently in the planning pipeline".

You can see that coal is growing quickly. It will be interesting to see whether that continues, as wind grows.

By the end of 2007 total wind will be about 1.5% of total kwhr production, and doubling every 18-24 months. Annual installation in 2007 will be .6% of total production. This only needs to double 2-3 times to take care of all new needed generation each year. Finally, in 10-12 years cheap solar will almost certainly be here. By the time nuclear plants start arriving, in 10-12 years, they could easily not be needed at all.

I think it likely that BIPV in new homes will become standard, and that from the point of view of utilities that traditional electrical consumption growth will begin to slow dramatically around there. Of course, new consumption will probably happen - plug-ins (PHEV's) - but that consumption will be eminently manageable and schedulable, making wind and solar intermittency easier to manage, and leveling peak load.

Toyota now says the Prius will get 100+ MPG in 2 years (because of better Li-ion batteries), and they’re exploring PHEV’s. In 10 years I think PHEV’s will be growing quickly, and in 20 years they could be the majority of the (active) fleet of cars.

Things are getting there, if more slowly than would be ideal.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 2:44:00 PM PDT, Blogger Chris Vernon said...

I think Hemenway's article is generally poor:

Some interesting points but also some also some bits I'm not so happy with like the North Sea graph. The dip - was the Piper Alpha explosion and the Hubert peak drawn is wrong since it's area isn't equal to the URR.

They note, correctly, that per-capita use has begun to drop world-wide, and they leap to the conclusion that this can only mean we're headed back to the Stone Age: Less oil per person must be just like less food or money per person, so civilization is going to end, this sloppy thinking goes. However, US oil consumption per capita has declined substantially since 1979 and we've got more toys than ever.

I would suggest that food per person has indeed been falling since the 1980's and Americans only have more toys than ever since they are now being made elsewhere - with other people's oil.

Estimates project that in 2040, production will have slipped to 12 billion barrels--back to 1965 levels. To descend to that point would require a drop in consumption of 2.2% per year for 35 years. Can we do this? I think so. From 1973 to 1975, and again from 1979 to 1983, consumption fell by roughly this much per year.

We had a recession in the mid 70's and the early 80's - to say that a 2.2% decline is okay is to say that a 35 year recession is also okay - great! I also think it's wrong to compare peak oil, global warming, aquifer depletion and soil loss to recent disasters such as:

A series of Class 4 and 5 hurricanes, the eruption of Mount St. Helens, years of surging inflation, a stock market crash, two major earthquakes in California, huge floods, September 11, a stolen election or two, multi-state blackouts, the destruction of New Orleans...

And suggest we survived those so we can survive the former. Peak oil, global warming, aquifer depletion and soil loss are vastly more far reaching and long lasting that anything we've recently survived - they are completely different types of problems. Good effort but I think if that's the optimists argument the pessimists are closer to the mark.

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 6:59:00 AM PDT, Blogger allen said...

sameu wrote:

at current production rates, how long can we pull this game off until all the oil is gone?
40 years? 50? maybe 60?

You tell me, and then tell me how you came to the conclusion you come to. So far all you've done, like all Peakers, is state as a fact so obvious it doesn't need support, that you have some idea when this particular resource will be depleted.

so please don't talk about thousand or even hundred years cause that's totally irrelevant

And the reason for total irrelevancy would be? Because the the petroleum is going to run out in 40 years or 50 year or 60 years? I want to know why you're so sure. That you are sure doesn't matter to me.

dom wrote:

Am I getting too close, allen?

Yeah, I'm trembling.

No, you don't have to deny anything. You can continue babbling around the issue.

If you define demanding that you make some modest effort to offer a rationale for your predictions as "babbling around the issue", I guess I will continue. You could offer some rationale for your predictions and then those could be debated but that doesn't seem to be part of your agenda.

An unsupported pronouncement followed by studied disdain may be your idea of all that's required but lend your belief's credibility but your convenience isn't quite enough for me, or any non-idealogue, to get on board the Peak Oil choo-choo train.

My guesstimate is that conventional oil peaked a couple years back. My guesstimate is that Deffeyes is exactly right. We are on/past Peak.

Well there you go. Your guesstimate and $1.20 will get you a cup of coffee at Tim Horton's.

Now, are there 5.5 units left? 4.5 left? Hubert's point was that there are 10. All the blogs in the world will not change that fact.

What fact? "are there 5.5 units left?" and "4.5 left?" are questions and I know all about Hubbert's point. Since, under the best possible interpretation, Hubbert was right once, how is anyone who hasn't already made up their mind to determine if Hubbert wasn't just lucky?

We never (in Ohio) produced nearly as much as in 1893, no matter how many wells we drilled...

Nice story. Ohio isn't the world.

btw Allen,you attacked my conclusion, how about attacking my argument?

I suppose if you define demanding that you defend your conclusion as an attack then it's an attack but let's not stray too far from the central point:

Summing up the entire game: There were ten units in the barrel and now there are only five. Hemenway and JD need to deny that in order to support their house of cards.

Whence cometh the insight that there were ten units of oil and now there are only five? You haven't offered the slightest bit evidence that there were ten units of oil and now there are only 9.9999 units.

 
At Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 3:56:00 AM PDT, Blogger sameu said...

allen wrote:

You tell me, and then tell me how you came to the conclusion you come to. So far all you've done, like all Peakers, is state as a fact so obvious it doesn't need support, that you have some idea when this particular resource will be depleted.


Divide the URR divided by two, by the daily production and you'll end up with something between 40 and 60 years, depending on which numbers you use

so if we pressume that there is no such thing as a production peak and daily production stays the same
oil will be depleted in our lifetime
it's a matter of decades

so your argument that it's important when we are going to peak, in five year or in thousand years is irrelevant because that order of magnitude is just wrong

 
At Friday, April 14, 2006 at 3:51:00 AM PDT, Blogger Dom said...

Sorry, allen.

I didn't get what you were saying and you didn't get what I was saying.

Thanks sameu.

Nice story. Ohio isn't the world.

No, Ohio is an enclosed area. And the home state of the Rockefellers with their Standard Oil.

My point is: When we compare a typical depletion MODEL, like Hubbert's (and every model has its limits), it needs to be a fixed area, i.e. Ohio. Or the landlocked Lower 48. Or the earth.

So, yes, Ohio is the world. (Oh, why did I move out?-( Meaning, both are fixed geographical areas.

Hubbert didn't get lucky with his prediction. He moved his "peak" date over the years from the early '60s to the early '70s as he got more data (just like Campbell is doing with world production) and was finally right. In hindsight, a ten-year margin of error doesn't seem like much. While you're in it, a decade can seem like an eternity sometimes...

Since no one CAN know when 50% of the barrel will be empty, we can only follow the markets (price will be a good indication) and perhaps the bi-weekly updated graphs on The Oil Drum. This one's from Aril 4th.

 
At Friday, October 6, 2006 at 7:38:00 PM PDT, Blogger lance sjogren said...

JD's comment:

"To consider human progress, I could easily point to the plethora of technological advances made recently."

I think is at the heart of not only the peak oil debate but the much broader debate between technology optimists and pessimists.

When you read doomer literature, what you find is a lot of reference to long-term history of mankind. Boom and bust cycles.

In contrast, cornucopianists base their expectation for the future on what has happened in very recent history.

My belief is that both will prove valid. Mankind will gradually proceed to a higher level of technological development, but it will a process that undergoes deep long-term cycles during which we regress a great deal during the downswings.

If one is projecting the future based on the long-term trends of the past, then one thing where the doomers are very foolish is to make predictions of the very near-term occurrence of changes that history should teach them will instead occur over very long spans of time. However, I think it is possible that our much further level of technological development now compared to in the past may mean that the long term cycles compress into much shorter cycles.

A simplistic example would be peak oil, which I believe will occur over the next couple of decades, but I also believe those who are around several decades after that may witness a new upswing built around new solutions to energy. I do believe that we largely DO NOT TODAY have solutions to the winding down of fossil fuel supplies.

 
At Friday, October 6, 2006 at 7:51:00 PM PDT, Blogger lance sjogren said...

By the way, the question of when will we peak.

I think that completely revolves around what transpires with the "crappy" forms of fossil fuels.

Extremely heavy use of Coal would probably buy us a couple of decades of status quo. If it proves feasible to make large-scale use of oil sands & shale, that probably adds at least several more decades.

In the meantime, CO2 emissions will be skyrocketing, but the fact is, the developed (and developing, for that matter) world will not give up prosperity to forestall possible grim consequences in the future.

For example oil sands. How heavily will these be exploited? The requirement for a lot of water in the process is given as one "show stopper" for development of the Alberta oil sands as a major, let us say Saudi Arabia level type producer of oil. But how firm is that limitation. One needs to keep in mind that when the price of conventional oil is high enough to begin seriously impinging on the economic well-being of oil consumers, environmental considerations will go out the window. So the question will wind up being, not how much water can be diverted to oil sand production without damaging the ecosystems of the watersheds the oil sands reside in, but, rather, how much water is available, period. Also I wonder whether the water can be recycled. Perhaps a lot of it is lost since I believe the process viewed as likely to be the mainstream one involves applying steam to the oil sands.

 
At Sunday, June 3, 2007 at 2:29:00 PM PDT, Blogger Diggadave said...

Some interesting points about Mr. Hubbert's report:

(1) Hubbert worked for Shell (the oil company)

(2) Hubbert pushed a theory that oil was a finite resource and was too cheap (good news for a an oil company).

(3) Hubbert wrote in 1956 that the entire earth held no more than 1.2 trillion barrels of oil.... But we have already consumed that much and the stuff still comes out of the ground

(4) There are around 200 years' worth of [heavy] crude oil in Venezuela alone

(5) Hubbert's report is actually titled "Nuclear Energy & the Fossil Fuels" and pushes nuclear energy as an alternative source of energy

(6) At the time of publication (1956) Shell was about to announce the formation of URENCO - a uranium enrichment consortium.

Draw your own conclusions....

 
At Sunday, June 3, 2007 at 2:31:00 PM PDT, Blogger Diggadave said...

Some interesting points about Mr. Hubbert's report:

(1) Hubbert wrote in 1956 that the entire earth held no more than 1.2 trillion barrels of oil.... But we have already consumed that much and the stuff still comes out of the ground

(2) Hubbert worked for Shell (the oil company)

(3) Hubbert was said oil was a finite resource and was too cheap (good news for an oil company).

(4) There are around 200 years' worth of [heavy] crude oil in Venezuela alone

(5) Hubbert's report is actually titled "Nuclear Energy & the Fossil Fuels" and pushes nuclear energy as an alternative source of energy

(6) At the time of publication (1956) Shell was about to announce the formation of URENCO - a uranium enrichment consortium.

Draw your own conclusions....

 

Post a Comment

<< Home