Peak What? Hubbert's Nobel Prize Part 1
As mentioned in the Oil Drenched Black Swan... "Contrary to popular conception that oil flows for decades without having to do anything other than poke a hole in the ground, oil fields need huge investments of capital to maintain high production: carbon dioxide or water must be injected into the wells, and so on. So even if fields are kept online through the price bust, their production will decline as capital spending dries up."
The above is lost on King Hubbert's acolytes, as like chicken little, they always claim false peaks i.e. 1986 when production tanked following a price head fake to the downside. Here are some facts for disciples of King Hubbert's theory:
1. Price can never prove how much oil remains in the ground. Please notify when your price "proves a peak" theory is scientifically proven and accredited.
2. Nobody has been able to accurately calculate "a peak" for the unknown - how much remains in the ground. It's an unknown and there is no currently known methodology to calculate it. For anyone to state, Hubbert's peak predictions were "correct" or "there is no more light crude to be found and it has all been used up" is an assumption and a guess.
3. You can guess or estimate, but that is not accurate and provable science nor eligible for accreditation. I have cited credible science and industry data in many missives, proving the fact that we are pumping more C&C and liquids than ever before, thereby debunking any peak claims.
4. When a theory is not accredited, it need not be discredited. The onus is on the cult who believe in the "theory" to achieve accreditation by proving it through credible science, not through mainstreaming in the media narrative. To date, no credible scientist or organization will claim a peak or accredit Hubberts theory as being scientifically proven, for obvious reasons.
5. To date, Hubbert's theory has not, and cannot be proven. Until someone proves Hubbert's theory through credible science, it remains an unproven theory. If it had been proven by credible science, Hubbert would have won the Nobel prize and his theory would be accepted scientific fact, which it is not.
More to come in Part 2.
The above is lost on King Hubbert's acolytes, as like chicken little, they always claim false peaks i.e. 1986 when production tanked following a price head fake to the downside. Here are some facts for disciples of King Hubbert's theory:
1. Price can never prove how much oil remains in the ground. Please notify when your price "proves a peak" theory is scientifically proven and accredited.
2. Nobody has been able to accurately calculate "a peak" for the unknown - how much remains in the ground. It's an unknown and there is no currently known methodology to calculate it. For anyone to state, Hubbert's peak predictions were "correct" or "there is no more light crude to be found and it has all been used up" is an assumption and a guess.
3. You can guess or estimate, but that is not accurate and provable science nor eligible for accreditation. I have cited credible science and industry data in many missives, proving the fact that we are pumping more C&C and liquids than ever before, thereby debunking any peak claims.
4. When a theory is not accredited, it need not be discredited. The onus is on the cult who believe in the "theory" to achieve accreditation by proving it through credible science, not through mainstreaming in the media narrative. To date, no credible scientist or organization will claim a peak or accredit Hubberts theory as being scientifically proven, for obvious reasons.
5. To date, Hubbert's theory has not, and cannot be proven. Until someone proves Hubbert's theory through credible science, it remains an unproven theory. If it had been proven by credible science, Hubbert would have won the Nobel prize and his theory would be accepted scientific fact, which it is not.
More to come in Part 2.
Comments