File talk:Hubbert peak oil plot.svg

This plot of the Hubbert Curve is simply one of many possible curves for the depletion of liquid hydrocarbons. The utility of this particular depiction is dubious without a complete explanation of assumptions and definitions. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, several variables would alter the timing and magnitude of the peak. Variance due to plausible ranges for these variables would significant increase the maximum peak production, alter the integral (the total production under the curve) and extend the timing of the peak by decades or even into the next century.

The first error with this depiction of the Hubbert Curve (and many others found on Wikipedia) is the failure to define "oil". Restricting the curve to conventional crude oil is a fallacy since crude oil itself has numerous close substitutes which are used today. Simply recognizing this reality and plotting a Hubbert Curve for "extracted liquid hydrocarbons" would pick up current and future production of heavy oil, ultra heavy, tar sands bitumen, and natural gas plant liquids. Beyond these liquid hydrocarbons are other hydrocarbons that also can substitute for crude oil. These begin with oil shale kerogen, and synthfuels derived from coal and natural gas liquefaction. A third set of additional supply is created when you allow for refinery blending (which occurs now) with non extracted liquid hydrocarbons. Currently this is primarily ethanol derived from sugar cane and corn. But a second technological wave occurs when cellulosic ethanol, algae and other bio hydrocarbons, liquefied methane ices, and completely synthetic hydrocarbons reach greater degrees of viability and production. Lastly, gaseous substitutes to liquid hydrocarbons are used today in meaningful quantities and could expand in the future - primarily CNG (Compressed Natural Gas). If you add CNG to all liquid hydrocarbons the available supply is significantly greater than that implied by this particular Hubbert Curve.

The second error with this curve is that it implies that supply will exhaust and cause production to diminish. This is a fallacy. As the marginal cost of production of liquid hydrocarbons rise due to depletion of low cost sources, price substitution to alt energy and change in demand will cause diminishment of production NOT SUPPLY! That is, if you corrected for error #1 and fixed the price of a barrel of crude oil at say $150 per barrel and allowed no substitutions to alt energy the peak of the Hubbert curve would extend out to the end of this century and possibly into the next. The supply and demand on liquid hydrocarbons is complex.

These "we're at peak now or just past it" Hubbert Curves have been proven repeatedly wrong for decades. Go Google Hubbert Curves generated in the 1980 or 1990s and they invariably depict peaks that didn't occur. The oil price shocks of 1979 and 2008 caused a significant decrease in global demand, no doubt temporary reductions in global oil production due to reduced demand will be falsely attributed to depletion. Keep in mind that due to substitutions and efficiency gains following the 1979 oil shock, US demand for crude oil did not recover to 1978 levels until 2004. 7o62x39 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

Out of date

This particular Hubbert graph shows the peak at the year 2000, and falling production after that peak. As I type this, it is late 2015, and production is at an all time high. In fact production is so high that oil prices have fallen for a year. There has been no drop off in production. Nick Beeson (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)