Loss of Petroleum Based Products..

[J]

You obviously have no clue how it works. Reserves aren't "proven" by expending resources, they are either found or new technology is developed to extract a larger percentage of existing oil. <snippa more pessimism>

Both of which - and especially the latter of which - requires the expenditure of resources. Let's not wrangle over semantics, here.

You're still missing the point. There have been no significant oil finds for the last 30 years, nor improved oil extraction technologies in the past 20 years. So where is all this new oil coming from? How are oil reserves keeping pace with extraction, and even growing despite there being no new finds of any significance nor new extraction methods & technologies?

Yes, of course: it is not as if it is inconceivable that he may be rebutted or anything - what with opaque work and unproven assertions and all. What I find more objectionable is all these post-hoc excuses that keep emerging.

http://www.gasresources.net/Lynch(Hubbert-Deffeyes).htm

I notice that nearly the entire article focuses on Campbell's flawed predictions, and attempts to use that to discredit Hubbert's theory and those who believe in it. It should also be noted that his degree is in Political Science, he has no background in petrochemical geology. In fact all his work is with computer models which are highly flawed.

If you want to know how bad, well, let's go back to Saudi Arabia where they have the most sophisticated computer modeling for oil fields. Models say the previously abandoned Qatif field would produce half a million barrels a day, and sustainably do so for many years. It came nowhere close to that, initial production I believe was about 200,000 bpd, falling quickly to 100,000 or so. Computer models couldn't and didn't see the rock structure, had they drilled core samples and test flowed wells, the latter of which they didn't, they would've known that computer simulations were highly optimistic to say the least. The rocks flowed poorly, the reservoir is highly fractured and poorly connected, and oh yes, it contains large amounts of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas, none of which the computer models saw.

So you have the opinion of a PolySci major who dickers with flawed computer models against that of people who are highly knowledgeable (multiple PhDs, decades of industry & field experience) in the field of petrochemical geology. I don't know about you but I'll side with the PhDs.