[Graeme]

Busting the Hubbert Myths Part I

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ver the next several months, the M King Hubbert Tribute will publish a series of articles that discredit some popular myths surrounding the work of M King Hubbert - the father of peak oil theory – that are beginning to be accepted as fact and thereby confounding the peak oil debate.
The first myth is that Hubbert was stuck on one projection for world oil production.

Peter Jackson of Cambridge Energy Research Associates exclaims: “Despite his valuable contribution, M. King Hubbert’s methodology falls down because it does not consider likely resource growth, application of new technology, basic commercial factors, or the impact of geopolitics on production. His approach does not work in all cases – including on the United States itself – and cannot reliably model a global production outlook.” [1]

Jackson and other optimists contend that peak oil is several decades away.


The “one model” myth is false. Clearly, Hubbert recognized decades ago that world oil production did not fit a strict bell curve, and therefore peak estimates would need to be adjusted over time to account for actual production. The implication is that many different scenarios are indeed possible and they depend on (among other things) the planned production policies of producer nations and changes in world oil demand do to geopolitical circumstances and conservation efforts. Despite that we may not yet have reached world oil peak, conventional oil is limited, may peak within the next decade, and prospective alternatives (e.g., shale oil) will not replace oil. The idea of dismissing peak oil theory because Hubbert’s traditional model said oil would peak in 1995 is without merit. Let’s move the debate forward…

[LastViking]

As a principle, the Hubbert Curve is sound when applied to Regular Conventional Oil. But most have missed MK Hubbert's purposeful exclusion of Alaska and non-Conventional oils in his studies. He mentions them ... and then excludes those categories.

His reason, as i interpret it, is based on his understanding that the differing flow rates of the several categories of non-conventionals disqualifies the general hypothesis that increased URR means an increased Peak Rate.

Since 1995, URR has doubled. But the Hubbert gaussian model is not robust enuf to reallocate increased non-conventional URR to the downslope. It mistakenly tries to increase the Peak. As URR approaches 4-Tb today (due to high oil prices), gaussian & parabolic models attempt to increase the Peak to the unprobable magnitude territory of 125 to 145 mbd.

As a predictive tool for the All Liquids profile, a blending of logistics, least squares or parabola is reguired for the Peak Rate and Peak Year with gaussian to define the Decline.

Parabola does a superior tracking of the actual two decade vicininity surrounding the Peak, but is deficient in being unable to flip over to concave for the tail. This results in absurd Decline Rates (exceeding 4%).

[seahorse]

Increasing reserves has not proven to delay the production peak. The US is a prime example and the North Sea also. The US peaked as predicted, despite the fact that US reserves have increased since that time.

[PraiseDoom]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'I')ncreasing reserves has not proven to delay the production peak.

[jerry_mcmanus]

I recently transcribed a long and detailed analysis of fossil fuels written by Hubbert in 1976 for an energy textbook. The Hubbert Tribute site graciously agreed to host the article here:

http://mkinghubbert.com/resources/documents/outlook

Hubbert applies three seperate analyses to oil, coal and nat. gas, and he also discusses shale oil, tar sands and heavy oil.

Most interesting to me is the analysis he calls "Cumulative Statistical Data" in which he models three curves: production, discovery, and reserves. Curiously, the discovery data does not appear to be backdated, and he shows only an 11 year gap between discovery and production.

He uses the US as an example in the article, but it would be fascinating to see this analysis applied to world data, if that's possible. I know Laherrere has made the case that reserves reporting is too "political", which I believe is the reason why discovery data is usually backdated.

Cheers,
Jerry

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jerry_mcmanus', 'I') recently transcribed a long and detailed analysis of fossil fuels written by Hubbert in 1976 for an energy textbook. The Hubbert Tribute site graciously agreed to host the article here:

http://mkinghubbert.com/resources/documents/outlook

[jerry_mcmanus]

Thanks WHT, I appreciate your support.

I know this is a long shot, but would you happen to know if Laherrere has seen the article? Clearly you and others (Khebab) have the math chops to revisit Hubbert's analysis, but Laherrere (or maybe Campbell) seems to have access to the world data, especially regarding reserves.

Cheers,
Jerry

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jerry_mcmanus', 'T')hanks WHT, I appreciate your support.

I know this is a long shot, but would you happen to know if Laherrere has seen the article? Clearly you and others (Khebab) have the math chops to revisit Hubbert's analysis, but Laherrere (or maybe Campbell) seems to have access to the world data, especially regarding reserves.

Cheers,
Jerry

[jerry_mcmanus]

I spent the afternoon digging up links to some of Laherrere's pdf's and found what I was looking for, or close to it.

Hubbert's analysis shows two graphs, one for cumulative:



and one for annual rates:



Each shows an inflection point where reserves stop growing, a point that is about halfway between the peaks in discovery and production, and which also happens to be the same point at which the discovery and production curves cross in the annual rates graph.

I fond graphs for world data by Laherrere that show cumulative:



and annual rates:



neither of which has a curve for reserves, although the same document had this graph showing "political" vs. backdated reserves on the same scale as the cumulative graph:



A few minutes spent in Photoshop and I was able to transpose the backdated reserves curve (here in blue) on the cumulative logistic models:



Yep, it all checks out. In Laherrere's annual rates graph we can clearly see that the discovery and production curves did in fact cross in about 1980, just as the oil shocks hit, and in the cumulative graph this corresponds perfectly to the inflection point in the backdated reserves, also right about 1980.

Hubberts analysis was spot on. World discovery peaked in about 1965, 15 years before the inflection point, and if the oil shocks had not flattened production the "idealized" production curve would have peaked 15 years after inflection in 1995, just as Hubbert predicted.

Now that we know the inflection point lies halfway between the peaks in the discovery and production curves, and we know that the world inflection point was 15 years after the peak in discovery, we can clearly see in the cumulative graph that the oil shocks pushed the production curve out by about 15 years from what would have been the ideal curve, which puts the peak of world production in 2010.

Here's an interesting question: Is it my imagination or is there also a correlation between the inflection point and the point at which the data in a Linearization "settles down"?



Could this be a new means of determining at what point in time to begin the linear regression?

Cheers,
Jerry

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jerry_mcmanus', '
')Now that we know the inflection point lies halfway between the peaks in the discovery and production curves, and we know that the world inflection point was 15 years after the peak in discovery, we can clearly see in the cumulative graph that the oil shocks pushed the production curve out by about 15 years from what would have been the ideal curve, which puts the peak of world production in 2010.

[jerry_mcmanus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', '
')Interesting that a reserve peak can be mathematically proven.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jerry_mcmanus', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', '
')Interesting that a reserve peak can be mathematically proven.

[jerry_mcmanus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', 'I')t's almost as if they think that oil depletion analysis is a branch of economics, where all you really have are empirical observations.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jerry_mcmanus', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', 'I')t's almost as if they think that oil depletion analysis is a branch of economics, where all you really have are empirical observations.

[jerry_mcmanus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', '
')I "learned" about economics in college. An instructor actually wrote a long equation on the blackboard (describing some macro-economic law that I can't remember), and then promptly erased it, stating "That's the last equation you will ever see in this class"

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jerry_mcmanus', '
')Apologies for the confusion, but I thought that mathematical modeling of future trends based on observed statistical data is about as empirical as it gets, then it occured to me that most of the current depletion modeling, with the notable exception of your shock/dispersive model, is completely dependent on shot-in-the-dark SWAG's as to URR.

Cheers,
Jerry

[Veritas]

Greetings,

I was curious if the idea of oil production following a bell shaped curve has been disproved, as a colleague recently told me that it had been repeatedly shown that it is inaccurate.

Neither of us disputes that oil production will peak, and that it will happen sometime soon if it has not happened already. Where we disagree is whether the peak coincides with half of all oil being produced, and whether the right half of the curve will be a steep bell-shape or an undulating plateau.

While there are certainly repercussions in either case, if it is a bell-shape the implications are far more severe than if its a long slow decline.

This is important to know when people claim peak oil theory is false - for no thinking person can claim that oil production will never peak, but very intelligent people could argue that the peak will follow by very slow decline rather than a sharp decline. Is there any conclusive evidence one way or the other?

And if this is already covered in threads here I apologize, a link to said discussion would be great!

Thanks!

[Twilight]

The bell curve is employed as a mathematical model of the exploitation of a finite resource. It is just calculus. The real world does not perfectly follow a few lines of maths. Its greater complexity does not invalidate the principle however, namely that there will be a right hand side of the curve with a negative gradient.

I would object to any suggestion that the question of linear decline vs. exponential decline is a deal-breaker. The key word is decline, so immediately the difference is one of variety. And I am not sure that a linear decline is better than exponential. Exponential decline removes a fixed fraction in a fixed interval, which is bad at first, but at lower levels of production removes ever smaller quantities of production. Linear decline removes a fixed quantity in a fixed interval, which as time goes on, becomes proportionally more brutal. If your mitigation strategies involve long lead times, as ours surely would, you would prefer exponential decline.

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattS', 'h')ttp://www.peakoil.com/fortopic35082.html

[Twilight]

Here is an ideal illustrative model of how production lags discovery.

In reality it looks less tidy.

But the principle is the same - you have seen the dress rehearsal up to the final act, so you can roughly guess at what point you are halfway through the play on the one night that matters.