Hubbert's model
Michael Lynch's article (OGJ, July 14, 2003, p. 38) is a peevish exercise in intellectual dishonesty. To begin with, he makes an utterly misleading fuss because "oil production rarely follows a bell curve." Much ado about nothing! Hubbert's main point was that a fossil fuel's endowment is fixed; therefore its production curve "will rise, pass through one or several maxima, and then decline asymptotically to zero."
"Energy from Fossil Fuels" also stated explicitly that such a curve may have "an infinity of different shapes." How can Lynch not know this? The bell-shaped curve is simply a stylized, idealized representation of the phenomenon of rise, peak, and decline of output, amenable to mathematical expression and analysis, useful as a pedagogical and forecasting device—in fact, the sort of thing economists do all the time.
As Lynch should know, real-world data don't necessarily conform to idealized shapes generated by mathematics—and aren't expected to. The shape does handily illustrate the general phenomenon. So real-world data aren't a smooth bell curve. Big deal. What matters is the general pattern of rise, peak, and decline. Lynch is bashing a straw man.
The fundamental issue is this: Is the oil endowment fixed and finite, or isn't it? If it is, peak and decline are inevitable; if not, not. Geologists have known for decades that oil's formation requires certain heat and pressure conditions operating over geologic time. This necessarily makes the quantity finite—implying that the Hubbert camp is ineluctably right. The only way around this is Thomas Gold's "deep, hot biosphere" which would keep augmenting the oil endowment (how quickly?). The physicist Albert Bartlett assured me in private correspondence that he didn't know of "any scientists who count on the kind of oil Thomas Gold postulates." Game, set, and match to Hubbert, Campbell, Deffeyes, Laherrere, et al.!
Lynch also misrepresents the Hubbert modelers as claiming that "geology is the sole motivator of discovery, depletion, and production." They never said geology is the "motivator"—curious choice of words!—of anything. What they do say, and as Lynch's immediately following quotes from their works make clear, is that geology limits what is possible in discovery and production. Which of course it does.
A further misrepresentation is to depict the Hubbert camp as saying that geology determines everything single-handed. Campbell, at least, does not deem it "foolish" that "production is influenced by oil prices." His "Essence of Oil & Gas Depletion," which Lynch cites, maintains explicitly that "demand naturally influences the rate of depletion [p. 9]" and that "In forecasting oil production, it is important to take into account demand as well as supply [p. 182]." A fair treatment of the Hubbert camp would include this qualification. Or did Lynch and I read different books?
Nor do the Hubbert modelers "attempt to divine physical laws" from "particular shapes." As the foregoing quotes from Hubbert make clear, the reverse is true: the reality of limits means production must rise, peak, and decline. The "particular shape" is irrelevant.
Such falsifications and distortions are common among cornucopians. That, plus their refusal to acknowledge the reality of limits, destroys their credibility in my eyes.
John Attarian
PhD (economics)
Ann Arbor, Mich.
Lynch responds
Dr. Attarian would be advised to read more, and more carefully. First, I acknowledged Dr. Hubbert's 1956 views on the bell curve as a convenience, not a necessity. It is others, such as Campbell and Laherrere, who have stated that the bell curve is predictive. The argument has been made, by myself and numerous others, that this is untrue in theory and practice, so the criticism is completely misguided.
The statement that the fundamental issue is whether the oil 'endowment' is fixed and finite is completely incorrect. The fundamental issue is whether the estimates of the amount of the endowment which is recoverable is fixed and well measured. Optimists believe that changes in economics (price, costs, and infrastructure) and ability (science and technology) can improve our ability to recover the resource, as history has shown for millennia. Pessimists argue that "oil is either there or it isn't" and that technological improvements only increase the rate at which the resource can be produced.
And yes, I am aware that Campbell (2003) acknowledges the role of price, demand, and other factors, but apparently it is not so much that I have read different books, but that I have read more. In earlier works, which I cited, Campbell did not accept these statements, and it was only after much criticism from the optimists' camp that he has modified his position, at least in the text. If you examine the creaming curves used to estimate resources, nowhere is there any evidence that any factors other than geology are thought to have an influence. As my article said, they are just curve-fitting.
And this revision to their position is a core issue. Campbell's article (OGJ, July 14, 2003, p. 38) claims superiority for his approach because of its 'natural science' nature. Yet he (and others) having repeatedly modified, even abandoned, core theories and arguments—and often accepting those of his critics, while deriding them—it is hard to credit them with following a scientific approach.
Ignorance of the history and breadth of a policy debate is not a sin, but combining it with accusations of intellectual dishonesty is hardly the mark of a scholar.
Michael C. Lynch
President
Strategic Energy & Economic Research Inc.
Amherst, Mass.
