M. King Hubbert
Marion King Hubbert, commonly known as M. King Hubbert, was an influential geophysicist renowned for his research on fossil fuel production limits and his prediction that U.S. crude oil production would peak in the early 1970s. His innovative use of mathematical models challenged the prevailing assumptions of major oil companies and geological institutions, often sparking controversy within the scientific community. Hubbert's academic journey began on a Texas farm and led him to the University of Chicago, where he combined studies in geology, physics, and mathematics. He later taught at Columbia University and contributed significantly to our understanding of groundwater motion and petroleum entrapment.
In his career, Hubbert worked for the Board of Economic Warfare, Shell Oil Company's research division, and the U.S. Geological Survey, where his findings greatly influenced oil exploration techniques. His notable prediction regarding oil production garnered attention when it proved accurate, further establishing his reputation. Throughout his life, Hubbert advocated for transitioning to renewable energy sources, ultimately recognizing solar energy as a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. His work and insights continue to resonate in discussions about energy resources and environmental sustainability today.
On this Page
Subject Terms
M. King Hubbert
Geoscientist
- Born: October 5, 1903
- Birthplace: San Saba, Texas
- Died: October 11, 1989
- Place of death: Bethesda, Maryland
Summary: M. King Hubbert was a geophysicist who predicted that worldwide supplies of petroleum are limited and that oil production in the lower 48 United States would peak in the early 1970s.
Marion King Hubbert is best known for his outspoken stance on the limits of fossil fuel production and his accurate forecast that U.S. production of crude oil in the lower 48 states would peak in the early 1970s. Hubbert’s findings, based on his research and mathematical models, often contradicted conventional wisdom held by oil companies, universities, and the U.S. Geological Survey and drew criticism from those who preferred the safety of (often erroneous) prevailing understandings. Hubbert’s career spanned academic, private-sector, and government positions, all with a focus on energy resources and geologic processes. He earned a wide array of awards and accolades during his lifetime for his contributions to science.
Hubbert grew up on a farm in San Sabe County in central Texas, where farming responsibilities meant his school years fluctuated from four to seven months. He completed two years of community college at nearby Weatherford College. Seeking more rigorous education, he transferred to the University of Chicago on his college president’s recommendation. With no money, he decided to work his way north to Chicago, first following the wheat harvest and then working for the Union Pacific Railroad replacing tracks. Upon arriving in Chicago in late 1924, he continued working at odd jobs until beginning his studies. With the university’s administration forcing him to choose a major, Hubbert declared a joint major in geology and physics with a minor in mathematics, making him a broadly trained earth scientist and geophysicist.
In 1931, Hubbert became an instructor of geophysics at Columbia University, where he wrote two of his most important papers, “Theory of Scale Models as Applied to the Study of Geologic Structures” (1937) and “The Theory of Groundwater Motion” (1940). His 160-page paper on groundwater motion required two issues of the Journal of Geology to be printed in full. His theory that groundwater moved rather than sat in static pools angered both hydrologists and petroleum engineers, because it went against (erroneous) conventional wisdom. He later adapted this work for the famous 1953 paper “Entrapment of Petroleum Under Hydrodynamic Conditions.” His work on the movement of underground liquids through cracks and pores in rocks helped to change oil and gas exploration techniques.
Hubbert left Columbia University in 1940 because of ongoing conflict with other faculty members on the structure of the geophysics curriculum. Hubbert believed that geophysics should be a rigorous field of training in a range of sciences, including geology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics, in order to prepare students with a full understanding of Earth’s interlinked physical processes. Other faculty saw geophysics as a borderline field with little depth. He continued advocating for curriculum reform and was instrumental in the Geological Society of America’s eventual recommendation to reorganize the geology curriculum to include mathematics, physics, and chemistry.
Private-Sector Career
After leaving Columbia, Hubbert worked at the Board of Economic Warfare as a senior analyst of mineral resources. In 1943, he joined Shell Oil Company’s research division, working there until mandatory retirement in 1964, after which he went to work for the U.S. Geological Survey. Shell had a policy of not hiring anyone over the age of 40. Hubbert was hired just before his 40th birthday and spent his first year proving his worth, which came in the form of an invited revision of his earlier scale models paper, which then earned high honors. He was a prominent figure in Shell’s research division, making significant contributions to structural geology and our understanding of geological processes. One such contribution was a 1957 paper with David Willis that demonstrated that fluids under pressure in boreholes fracture rock vertically, not horizontally. This work was later used to improve oil production techniques.
“From the standpoint of human history the epoch of the fossil fuels will be quite brief.” Hubbert made this seemingly simple argument throughout his career, first documented in a 1948 speech that garnered little attention. In 1956, Hubbert delivered a dramatic and dire analysis of oil production at an American Petroleum Institute meeting. Using a mathematical analysis based on historic trends and the industry-accepted estimate of 150 to 200 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the lower 48 U.S. states, he predicted that U.S. oil production would peak in the early 1970s. This time, his prediction caught the attention of the petroleum industry and researchers, launching the petroleum industry into a furor with staunch denials. Hubbert showed the fossil fuel curve on a timescale of 10,000 years, where fossil fuel usage appears as a blip in the middle, giving the curve its early nickname, Hubbert’s pimple.
Throughout his career, Hubbert published and occasionally taught as a visiting professor. He focused on energy resources and continued to argue that fossil fuels had a fleeting life span. He wrote a 1961 National Academy of Sciences report, commissioned by President John F. Kennedy, to evaluate U.S. natural resources in which he again made his dire forecast regarding oil reserves; it was ignored.
The U.S. production of oil did peak in the early 1970s, as Hubbert predicted, launching Hubbert’s celebrity. Early in his career, Hubbert had supported nuclear power as a viable alternative to fossil fuels. However, after working on an Atomic Energy Commission advisory committee for waste disposal, this enthusiasm waned, as he recognized the hazards. At the end of his life, he shifted his focus to the promise of solar energy, an energy source unconstrained by a human time frame and that will not be depleted for about 5 billion years.
Bibliography
Clark, R. D. “King Hubbert: Science’s Don Quixote.” The Leading Edge 2, no. 2 (1983).
Hubbert, M. K. “The Energy Resources of the Earth.” Scientific American 225, no. 3 (September 1971).
Hubbert, M. K. “Entrapment of Petroleum Under Hydrodynamic Conditions.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 37, no. 8 (1953).
Hubbert, M. K. “Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels.” In Shell Development Company Exploration and Production Research Division. Publication 95. Houston: Shell Development Company, Exploration and Production Research Division, 1956.
Narvaez, A. A. “Obituaries: M. King Hubbert, 86, Geologist Who Influenced Oil Production.” New York Times, October 17, 1989.