>It's always useful however to seperate an original
>idea (of anything) from what that idea spawned as time
>goes by.
In Hubbert's case, it seems to me that his geological model of oil depletion was also an adaptation of his earlier critique of price, productivity, man-hours and total output. I'm not positive about this, but I suspect that the geological model translates back into the earlier economic/historical model. In other words, it's not just about the ultimate number of barrels of crude in the ground -- whether known or unknown -- but also about the energy (both human and mineral) required to find and extract it. The barrel of oil in the ground that takes 'half a barrel' to find and 'half a barrel' to extract can bloody well stay in the ground for all the good it would do. It doesn't really matter how many gadzillions of barrels of that type there are. And the 'technological breakthrough' argument has limited purchase when it is recognized that technology is just a fancy word for using machines, which consume energy resources, to save labour.
Tom Walker 604 255 4812