The Social Construction of Validity in Estimates of US Crude Oil Reserves

Abstract

The resource estimates of M. King Hubbert, and the method he used to generate these estimates, are described. When Hubbert made his first estimate it reflected the consensus of opinion within the industry. The conclusions he drew about the future of the US oil industry, however, contradicted the conventional wisdom within both industry and government. His estimates were criticized and rejected, and a number of markedly higher estimates soon appeared. In 1974, the political economy of the oil industry changed, government and industry estimates fell, and consensus of opinion returned. Since Hubbert's methods and estimates remained constant throughout the period 1956-82, changes in scientific practice cannot explain the historical shifts in the treatment of his estimates as `valid', `invalid', and eventually `valid' again. Through an examination of the scientific controversies involving Hubbert's estimation technique and its results, it is argued that the `validity' of resource estimates is socially constructed through an attributional process tied to the political economy of the oil industry.