[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('markcmyers', 'Y')ou guys are doing a great job explaining why production inevitably declines
at some point. But nothing you've said is a convincing argument why the decline must follow Hubbert's Curve.

[markcmyers]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is no need for decline to follow Hubbert's Curve.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('markcmyers', 'I')s it possible that no one fully understands the mechanism that underlies Hubbert's curve?

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('markcmyers', 'N')ow we're getting somewhere. If there's no need for decline to follow Hubbert's Curve, then the Curve may not be useful for predicting near-term oil shortages. Is that a reasonable conclusion?

[markcmyers]

Very useful, JohnDenver. Thank you.

I've been studying Peak Oil for only a short time, so I haven't had a chance to check much data. As I understand it, though, the Peak Oil people argue that Hubbert's Curve fits not only the US48, but other producing countries where the supply is in decline. There is, of course, more than a little circularity here, since the Peak Oil people use the model itself to determine how much oil is left.

Clearly, the model is far easier to disprove than prove. As you say, you need to know total reserves in order to prove the model, which is impossible without the model. But to disprove the model, all you need is an uncooperative curve segment, as in your Russian example.

So, JohnDenver, what is it that you do believe about the oil supply?

[big_rc]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')
The predictive power of Hubbert's Curve is a myth. The myth says that Hubbert used some kind of mathematical curve to predict the US48 peak in 1970. In fact, Hubbert never produced any mathematical procedure/formula to justify his prediction. He just eyeballed it, took a guess and happened to be right.

The problem is that, in order to fit the curve, you must know the total area under the curve (i.e. total production, including the past and future).

It's magic!

[big_rc]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('markcmyers', 'V')ery useful, JohnDenver. Thank you.

I've been studying Peak Oil for only a short time, so I haven't had a chance to check much data. As I understand it, though, the Peak Oil people argue that Hubbert's Curve fits not only the US48, but other producing countries where the supply is in decline. There is, of course, more than a little circularity here, since the Peak Oil people use the model itself to determine how much oil is left.

Clearly, the model is far easier to disprove than prove. As you say, you need to know total reserves in order to prove the model, which is impossible without the model. But to disprove the model, all you need is an uncooperative curve segment, as in your Russian example.

So, JohnDenver, what is it that you do believe about the oil supply?

[tdrive]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut nothing you've said is a convincing argument why the decline must follow Hubbert's Curve. Do you see this?

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('markcmyers', 'Y')ou guys are doing a great job explaining why production inevitably declines
at some point. But nothing you've said is a convincing argument why the decline must follow Hubbert's Curve. Do you see this?

[Ayoob]

Oil production may or may not exactly mirror a bell curve. The curve could have two humps or three, or more depending on political, economic, social, or other types of circumstances.

That said, production will still probably start slowly, ramp up, peak, and eventually tail off. Not much debate on that point. Of course, global oil production will probably have a bumpy plateau of production before it tails off and begins to fall due to the dispersion of oil fields and production methods.

[Carmiac]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut suppose all the wells were drilled at the same time. Production would shoot up immediately from zero to the peak value and then decline thereafter. This has no resemblance to the Hubbert curve.

So this proves Hubbert is wrong.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('big_rc', 'P')eople like Simmons and Hubbert use stated reserve numbers.

[khebab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ')The problem is that, in order to fit the curve, you must know the total area under the curve (i.e. total production, including the past and future). Unfortunately, nobody knows that number, and there is no scientific way to determine it. So people like Hubbert and Campbell make a guess. That's the bottom line of these predictions. It's like guessing how many beans are in a jar, when the size of the jar is partly hidden by a curtain. It's magic!

[markcmyers]

To me, the most interesting question, as well as the most practical one, is: If we assume that a point is going to come when the gap between production and demand catalyzes the collapse of global systems, is there a way to predict when that point is going to come?

To be more concrete about it, I suppose most people would agree that somewhere between $200 and $300 a barrel, things start falling apart. So do we have enough data, and robust enough theory, to predict approximately when that is going to happen? If so, then we can get some idea whether we have enough time to adjust consumption and phase in alternative energy sources in order to save ourselves. Or, if not, the most prescient of us become survivalists. Isn't this mainly what the debate is all about?

Is so, then I don't think any of us can afford to be either tendentious or glib about the predictive power of Hubbert. It is of the greatest importance, both for the race and for each of us personally, and certainly for our children and grandchildren, to understand what the truth is, if it can be known at all. With that in mind...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ubbert's curve is a bell curve that is common in many systems.

[Phil]

Given that so many countries are past peak, and assuming each country has yielded about as much oil as was anticipated, I think to accurately predict the time of decline in the remaining countries (and therefore synthesize a World model) we can use the pre-OPEC reserve estimates of those countries with some confidence. I believe that's what Campbell, et al., have done.

I don't think Hubbert's theory states that it has to follow a particular type of curve, just that it will.

It seems to be that predictive power of these models lies in the modelers' ability to use historical data- to see for example that most fields tend to go into decline when half of the resource is recovered- perhaps as a function of the physics involved. I guess that's what you're trying to understand.

But I'm really not qualified to theorize.

[Phil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Phil', 't')o see for example that most fields tend to go into decline when half of the resource is recovered...

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carmiac', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', 'B')ut suppose all the wells were drilled at the same time. Production would shoot up immediately from zero to the peak value and then decline thereafter. This has no resemblance to the Hubbert curve.

So this proves Hubbert is wrong.

[markcmyers]

I know this question marks me as someone who knows very little about the oil business, but is it safe to assume that in any field with an adequate volume of oil, additional wells can be drilled to temporarily boost production? If so, do the additional wells reduce the total amount of oil that can ultimately be extracted? Or do they just speed up depletion, with the total unchanged?

[Phil]

I searched google for "field production" and found this graph.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he next largest producer (fig. 28, site 1) yielded 18 million bbl of oil and 52 million bbl of brine during 1943-83. During 1943-66, the ratio of brine to oil was relatively stable, as production was mostly from the field shown as site 1 in figure 28. Subsequent oil production at site 4 resulted in significantly greater amounts of brine, and in 1971 oil production leveled off while brine production continued to increase exponentially (fig. 29). Ultimately, oil production began to decline in 1977, and brine production continued to rise. The brine-to-oil ratio in 1983 was 6.4 to 1.0 compared with a 1 to 1 ratio in 1964.

[saudijones]

stinky farts