Re: Hubbert's Trough

[sartesian <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And what exactly do you mean by new discovery?  Does the Caspian count as a
new discovery.  Does Gulf of Mexico deepwater count as new discovery?  Does
Sao Tome count as a new discovery?

What makes new discovery important?  What is important is the overall
replacement rate and the revision to "proven reserves."

Simple fact of the matter is that the Hubbertists have increased their
estimate of proven reserves since 1997.   How can they account for that
without undermining the critical elements of their own "theory?"

Proven reserves are  an economic category  defined by the US SEC . Shouldn't
that tell us something?

The Hubbertists of the M. King Hubbert Center at the Colorado School of
Mines (gee, does that make them obssessed with a personality?) have stated
unequivocally that energy reserves contained in tar sands, shale, and super
heavy oil areas exceed current economically viable petroleum reserves by a
factor 10.  Shouldn't that tell us something about natural limits?

Unattractive features, technological difficulties are economic categories.
The Campbell, Ivanhoe, Duncan, Deffeyes school is arguing about absolute
limits.

I asked a series of concrete questions about the supposed validity of the
bell curve.  I would really appreciate it if one, just one of them was
answered.

From: "Michael Perelman" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Hubbert's Trough


> Prediction is a very difficult business, so a debate between the 1st & 2nd
articles
> seems legitimate.  The third is irrelevant & adds nothing to the
discussion.
>
> Someone pointed out the problem here.  Hubbert has become a symbol for the
ultimate
> [economic] scarcity of resources.  Sidetracking onto here person or
pointing to
> extreme statements by ultra-Malthusians does nothing constructive.
>
> I don't see much evidence of much new discovery.  We can use Alberta's
shale oil or
> coal, but both these have some unattractive aspects.
>
> Then, as Doug noted, we may just choke on the bad air ringing the bell on
the bell
> curve prematurely.
>
> We economists have not settled on the cause of the Great Depression yet,
we certainly
> have a less enviable record in predicting the future.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:56:36PM -0700, sartesian wrote:
> > Cool as a cucumber..
> >
> > The Good:
> >
> > http://www.gasresources.net/Lynch(Hubbert-Deffeyes).htm
> >
> >
> > The Bad:
> > http://www.technocracy.org/articles/hub-gro.html
> > Hubbert as Malthus
> >
> >
> > The Downright Ugly:
> > http://dieoff.org/page224.htm
> > "The earth's immune system, so to speak, has recognized the presence of
the human species and is starting to kick in. The earth is attempting to rid
itself of an infection by the human parasite."
> > Richard Preston, 1994
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu