[aldente]

apparently Mr. Hubbards rock oil shortage as predicted in the 1950's did not take place in time - leaves us all with one specific conclusion:

oil is not the remnant of "Sinclair Oil" dinosaur left over -semi plastic- indigestible somemthn` somethn..

the theory in itself is correct !

[sparky]

.
Marion Hubbert paper was specifically referring to conventional oil extraction in the U.S.
no deep sea , no tight oil, no extra heavy ,
within those parameters his forecast was spotlessly accurate .

depletion of an extracted finite resource is a fact ,
peak extraction of this resource is also a fact .
It has been the case for all sort of extractive industries since the dawn of civilization .

If you have some facts faulting this .... please , please give them ,I for one would be very happy

[regardingpo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', '.')
Marion Hubbert paper was specifically referring to conventional oil extraction in the U.S.
no deep sea , no tight oil, no extra heavy ,
within those parameters his forecast was spotlessly accurate .

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aldente', 'a')pparently Mr. Hubbards rock oil shortage as predicted in the 1950's did not take place in time - leaves us all with one specific conclusion:

oil is not the remnant of "Sinclair Oil" dinosaur left over -semi plastic- indigestible somemthn` somethn..

the theory in itself is correct !

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('regardingpo', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', '.')
Marion Hubbert paper was specifically referring to conventional oil extraction in the U.S.
no deep sea , no tight oil, no extra heavy ,
within those parameters his forecast was spotlessly accurate .

[ROCKMAN]

Neither data is wrong. They just represent two different dynamics. Hubbert's curve represented the future production curve of the known trends his population data represented. Which did prove to be rather acurate. The other curve presented represents production from all NG trends including those that Hubbert SPECIFICALLY said were not included in his projection. Of course one would only know that if they actually studied the details of his work.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'N')either data is wrong. They just represent two different dynamics. Hubbert's curve represented the future production curve of the known trends his population data represented. Which did prove to be rather acurate. The other curve presented represents production from all NG trends including those that Hubbert SPECIFICALLY said were not included in his projection. Of course one would only know that if they actually studied the details of his work.

[ROCKMAN]

pstarr - Actually they had been producing the Eagle Ford in the 1940's but the volume was insignificantly small. They may have been included in Hubbert's analysis but would have been meaningless. I suspect all of the arguments directed at my statements are a result of some folks reading what others IMPLY Hubbert said as opposed to reading his actual work.

And to be clear on the stats he used to make his US PO date prediction: he used the cumulative production history and decline rates of ALL THE SIGNIFICANT OIL TRENDS in the country that had been developed AT THAT TIME. And to not take anything away from his work but those trends were rather mature when he built his model.

Here's a simple and accurate explanation. You have a bag with a large but unknown number of white and black marbles. You can't tell what % are black can you? But you pull 10 out and 3 are black. How comfortable are you predficting that 30% of the marbles are black? Not too comfortable, I hope. LOL. But now you pull 600 out and 180 are black. How do you feel about the 30% stat now?

That's essentially was what Hubbert did: he sampled a very large number of existing US oil fields...essentially all of the known trends. Fields that had been almost fully developed and thus had a good handle on URR. And now to carry this simple analogy further: you feel good that 30% of the remaining marbles are black, right? That is untill someone dumps an unknown number of black marbles into the bag. Which is essentially what happened when oil prices shot up: it created a new population distribution in your bag...a lot of new black marbles. And until you draw a new large sample out you can't predict the future, can you? But then you do just that (drill a lot of shale wells) and now you think you can make a forecast, right? But when you're not looking some bastard sneaks some of the black marbles out of the bag (oil prices fall).

And this is where you are today: how many black marbles and shale wells are in your future? Work on that and let me know what you come up with. LOL

[ROCKMAN]

pstarr - And what really made Hubbert a star in his day wasn't so much the PO date prediction but recognizing that oil field size distribution followed a near perfect log-normal distribution. Turns out Mother Earth loves log-normal distributions. You can search that phenominon if interested. Kinda ties in with Fibonnaci numbers, another very interesting NATURAL phenomenon.

[ROCKMAN]

pstarr - And what really made Hubbert a star in his day wasn't so much the PO date prediction but recognizing that oil field size distribution followed a near perfect log-normal distribution. Turns out Mother Earth loves log-normal distributions. You can search that phenominon if interested. Kinda ties in with Fibonnaci numbers, another very interesting NATURAL phenomenon.

[aldente]

Thanks for mentioning the Fibonacci numbers Rockman - I do not know much about them but conclude that they reflect the large within the small and in reverso (italian).

regarding Peak Oil in general - as far as I recall I always was biting granite with everyone that I did try to convey the concept to - especially my own wife - which since divorced me - on basis that I supposedly am an "end-timer"- bla, bla--- while she now runs to the church herself where the so called apocalypse is preached.

Go figure - lots of heartbreak over such a simple matter-

all that Peak Oil states is the Gauss Bell Curve, which has been discovered by a school boy with last name Gauss in Germany in the end 1700's -to my knowledge (no quotation on the date - but how cares anyway these days -as if the psychotronic- psycho "non"-sexual (if the "non" is not written this post will be cencored) -psychon-non - understandable 2string theory would be in accordance with the original principal of making the world free from the hokus-pokus of religion... now we are back to it - string theory3 is on the way...

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'N')either data is wrong. They just represent two different dynamics. Hubbert's curve represented the future production curve of the known trends his population data represented. Which did prove to be rather acurate. The other curve presented represents production from all NG trends including those that Hubbert SPECIFICALLY said were not included in his projection. Of course one would only know that if they actually studied the details of his work.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'p')starr - And what really made Hubbert a star in his day wasn't so much the PO date prediction but recognizing that oil field size distribution followed a near perfect log-normal distribution.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'C')ome adam. You don't have the faintest idea what or why you are going on about. And your Hubbert link above is also air-headed. It's empty.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')Come on adam, we deserve a little more respect than this: this site can’t be reached. You don't even bother to reach what you cut and paste.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd Hubbert doesn't tend to get create for discovery process modeling basics, Arps and Roberts do. I haven't even ever seen a Hubbert explanation for the economic truncation effect, which is part and parcel of why a discovery distribution is a log normal. If the economic truncation is stripped away, you have more than a few people arguing for a pareto, I believe canada uses a model based on just such a distribution. The USGS plays a different game, using a truncated and shifted log-normal, and the agency formerly known as MMS uses a REALLY old version of the same idea, again log normals.

But I don't know what a "perfect" log-normal is Rockman. Or Hubbert figuring it out prior to Arps and Roberts. You see it as a common reference in resource assessment methodology, particular that coming from the USGS.

[ROCKMAN]

Adam - The SD would be insignificantly small. "I don't know what a "perfect" log-normal is Rockman. Or Hubbert figuring it out prior to Arps and Roberts. You see it as a common reference in resource assessment methodology, particular that coming from the USGS." Not perfect... I said near perfect. And so folks understand what a log-normal distribution looks like: plot any data with the horizontal scale linear (like 10...20...30...40...etc.) and the vertical scale as a log(10): 10...100...1,000,..etc.

Many natural data sets will plot out a very straight line when done on a log-normal chart. ESuch as reservoir side distribution: many more small ones the large ones (one of Hubbert's clues). Works very well with pressure depletion reservoirs such as the shales: once the initial high decline rate has passed the remaining curve looks like a near perfect straight line that can be used to make a fairly accurate estimate of URR.