[Plantagenet]

The formula is completely consistent with his assumptions and his inputs. It was the assumptions that were wrong.

If somebody designs a numerical model based on incorrect assumptions then their model generally won't work. In Hubbert's case, he failed to include all the necessary inputs to his model so the results from his numerical model don't match the real world behavior of the global oil market.

talking out of your backside....

Crockdoc---you are really a thickie, but I'm surprised that even you think the sounds coming out of people's backsides are words

CHEERS!

[tita]

The formula is completely consistent with his assumptions and his inputs. It was the assumptions that were wrong.

If somebody designs a numerical model based on incorrect assumptions then their model generally won't work. In Hubbert's case, he failed to include all the necessary inputs to his model so the results from his numerical model don't match the real world behavior of the global oil market.

It worked in the conditions he assumed back then. Or what was considered as oil reserves at that time.

And oil sands, LTO, deep offshore, arctic oil and so on were not considered as oil reserves. It's like failing to include nuclear electricity energy back in 1940 when analyzing the prospect of electricity generation in the next 50 years...

[spike]

The Hubbert curve is not really a model, just curve fitting as he himself originally admitted. Often fits trends based on large numbers, with inertia (i.e., gradual decline or growth). It ignores price, taxes, access, technology, etc. Only real variable is URR, which Hubbert used as a fixed quantity when it is a dynamic amount.
Best example of disproof: When US nat gas demand declined in early 1980s, he extrapolated it to find we would hit zero gas supply in a couple decades. Similarly, Campbell extrapolated post-Soviet production decline, ignoring that it was caused by the economic collapse.

[AdamB]

It is reasonable to ask how many CURRENT prognostications are nonsense as well. If it isn't obvious to you, it certainly is to me, some people are quite wrapped up in their prognostications, and have no sense at all about how poorly such things has worked out in the past.

"Some people" I can accept. But tarring the majority of the board with the same brush as these people is wearing a bit thin.

It did, however, appear to be entirely accurate for the time.

So is this perhaps how one of the few people who dared to question herd think get themselves banned?

[rockdoc123]

If somebody designs a numerical model based on incorrect assumptions then their model generally won't work. In Hubbert's case, he failed to include all the necessary inputs to his model so the results from his numerical model don't match the real world behavior of the global oil market. 

Once again read the damn paper. You seem to love to pontificate on various subjects but refuse to actually read the published information.
He did not fail to include information that was known at the time. His assessment was based on the current knowledge as it was in the mid-fifties regarding ultimately recoverable oil reserves in the US and the World. As time has progressed knowledge regarding different oil resources (heavy oil, oil from tight reservoirs, ultra-deep water etc) has increased which leads to improved understanding of ultimate recoverable reserves. Note that Hubbert in his 1956 paper stated that if URR was actually higher it would affect the point at which peak, as well as the peak rate itself, were achieved. As well the interplay between demand and supply and the impact of various socio-economic changes which had not been witnessed in the first half of the twentieth century have become better understood. When Newton constructed the classical mechanical theory (Newtonian mechanics) he could not have foreseen Einstein landing on his thoughts regarding special relativity which itself was followed by the theory of general relativity. Newton wasn’t wrong, he just did not have all the information that is now available.

[Plantagenet]

If somebody designs a numerical model based on incorrect assumptions then their model generally won't work.

He did not fail to include information that was known at the time.

Every failed scientific theory ever proposed was based on information "known at the time". Don't you even know that?

Scientific theories and models commonly fail because people make new discoveries and learn new things over time that falsify the older theory and disprove prior models. Thats whats happened to Hubbert's model. We now know it failed to accurately predict future oil production.

Its clear that Hubbert's numerical model purporting to predict various parameters of future oil production did not successfully predict much of anything. Look at US oil production.....it didn't peak in 1970 as Hubbert predicted, we are now above the rate of production that Hubbert said would be the peak, the total amount of oil produced in the US is far beyond what Hubbert's model said was even possible, and US oil production has been increasing for years, when Hubbert's model predicted US oil production would continuously decrease after 1970.

Hubbert's approach to predicting future US and global oil production didn't work, and his predictions have been proven wrong.

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

Its clear that Hubbert's numerical model purporting to predict various parameters of future oil production did not successfully predict much of anything. Look at US oil production.....it didn't peak in 1970 as Hubbert predicted,

what planet have you been living on. US production peaked in 1970 exactly as Hubbert had suggested it would based on his best knowledge of URR for the US at that time. It wasn't until 35 years later that technology was in place and prices were such that full on development of tight oil from shales could be accomplished. It is called a double peak, just like the UK North Sea saw a double peak due to changes in the fiscal regime. When Hubbert did his analysis there wasn't a soul in the world who would have suggested that oil from tight shale would ever be produced in meaningful quantities, it wasn't considered a resource and at the time it wan't one.

Not sure why you think you can rewrite history and everyone here will just nod their heads up and down rather than from side to side and mutter something to the effect "what an idiot".

[Plantagenet]

what planet have you been living on. US production peaked in 1970 exactly as Hubbert had suggested it would

What planet do you live on?

US production did not peak in1970. The numbers are clear---1970 was not the all time peak in US oil production---don't you even know that?.

Can you do simple math? US oil production is higher now then in 1970. That contradicts Hubbert's prediction that 1970 would mark he all time peak in US oil production.

Face facts: Hubbert was wrong---US oil production did not peak in 1970.

new-record-us-oil-production-2017

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

US production did not peak in1970. The numbers are clear---1970 was not the all time peak in US oil production---don't you even know that?.

Jesus wept....what part of double peak do you not understand?

Oil production from conventional reservoirs peaked in 1970 as predicted by Hubbert. It wasn't until 35 years later that technological improvements and economic considerations allowed for increased production of oil from unconventional reservoirs, resulting in what will be a second albeit higher peak.

You may not get the concept of a double peak but others certainly do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil

UK oil production has seen two peaks, in the mid 1980s and late 1990s,[6] with a decline to around 300×103 m³ (1.9 million barrels) per day in the early 1990s.[citation needed] Monthly oil production peaked at 13.5×106 m³ (84.9 million barrels) in January 1985[35] although the highest annual production was seen in 1999, with offshore oil production in that year of 407×106 m³ (398 million barrels) and had declined to 231×106 m³ (220 million barrels) in 2007

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Could-UK-Oil-Production-Peak-Again-In-2019.html

UK oil production peaked in 1999. The peak was probably pushed out a couple of years because of the major production interruptions following the Piper Alpha disaster. Production declined quickly until around 2011, then the high oil price allowed more brownfield and then greenfield developments that created a third local peak in 2016. Production is declining again this year but there are several large projects due that will create another peak in 2018 or 2019 

and as to Hubbert not predicting anything correctly...you better go and change that page on Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_curve

Basing his calculations on the peak of oil well discovery in 1948, Hubbert used his model in 1956 to create a curve which accurately predicted that oil production in the contiguous United States would peak around 1970

I’m not sure how you think you are qualified to comment on Hubberts predictions when it is pretty clear you never read his papers nor do you understand what exactly it is that he was doing or predicting.

Hubbert, M.K., 1956. Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels. Pubication No. 95 Shell Development Company, Drilling and Production Practice, API. 57 pp

A more effective means (Hubbert, 1950a, 1950b) of extrapolating such growth curves is afforded by two basic considerations: (1) For any production curve of a finite resource of fixed amount, two points on the curve are known at the outset, namely tat at t=0 and again at t= infinity. The production rate will be zero when the reference time is zero, and the rate will again be zero when the resource is exhausted; that is to say, in the production of any resource of fixed magnitude, the production rate must begin at zero, and then after passing through one or several maxim, it must decline again to zero.

And Hubbert even identified that multi-peaks happen:

In Figure 13 is shown the corresponding curve for the state of Illinois, which is distinguished by having two widely separated and well-defined maxima, the second considerably larger than the first. The reason for these two maxima is well known

Hubbert goes on to discuss the reason for the second peak in Illinois was due to an underestimation of what were potential hydrocarbon bearing strata and the invention of seismic helped to realize what that might be, creating the later, secondary but higher peak.

[Plantagenet]

Basing his calculations on the peak of oil well discovery in 1948, Hubbert used his model in 1956 to create a curve which accurately predicted that oil production in the contiguous United States would peak around 1970

Except that wasn't actually the all-time peak. Oil production is higher now then in 1970, so we know now that Hubbert was wrong in his prediction and 1970 wasn't the all-time peak of oil production in the USA.

Similarly Hubbert used his model to predict that global oil production would peak ca. 2000. But he was wrong again----global oil production now is significantly higher then it was ca. 2000.

Hubbert's model failed and his predictions turned out to be wrong because Hubbert never anticipated that oil production from TOS would be as significant as it has turned out to be. We can add his name to a long list of people who wrongly predicted oil production was reaching its all-time peak at this or that level....only to have oil production go higher then they predicted.

peak
pēk
adjective

1.
greatest; maximum.

Get it now?

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

Except that wasn't actually the all-time peak.

Nobody claimed it was. It was a peak of conventionally reservoired oil, the EUR for which Hubbert had a good handle on. HIs methodology was accurate given the knowledge of the day stayed accurate for nearly 50 years.

Similarly Hubbert used his model to predict that global oil production would peak ca. 2000. But he was wrong again----global oil production now is significantly higher then it was ca. 2000.

Because the EUR that was known at the time has increased dramatically due to new discoveries in areas which were unknown in the fifties. Seismic technology was in it's infancy, drilling technology was as well. The EUR Hubbert used was what everyone at the time thought was ultimately recoverable.

Hubbert's model failed and his predictions turned out to be wrong because Hubbert never anticipated that oil production from TOS would be as significant as it has turned out to be

and why is it that Hubbert should have anticipated oil from unconventional reservoirs ever being important? There certainly was no indications when he did his study.

[asg70]

HIs methodology was accurate given the knowledge of the day stayed accurate for nearly 50 years.

The peak oil movement collapsed because Hubbert's data was interpreted and extrapolated to predict a grim future which turned out to be wrong.

Trying to find ways to bracket or throw asterisks on his work to protect his legacy won't change the above, and the above is the only thing that really matters.

and why is it that Hubbert should have anticipated oil from unconventional reservoirs ever being important? There certainly was no indications when he did his study.

It's not that Hubbert should have, but defunct groups like The Oil Drum and ASPO definitely should have. They treated Hubbert's curve as too much gospel and did not incorporate new data.

The thread is about improving peak oil credibility, not about protecting the posthumous reputation of the late M. King Hubbert.

...

This tendency to focus on limited data-sources continues to afflict doomers, hence constant linking to Zero Hedge, Ugo Bardi, and little else. ETP zealotry as well. People tend to want to turn their brains off and follow individual prophets.

[rockdoc123]

The peak oil movement collapsed because Hubbert's data was interpreted and extrapolated to predict a grim future which turned out to be wrong.

Horseshit. Did you actually read his paper? Apparently not, given he in no manner suggests a grim future. Authors some 4-5 decades later quoted him while spinning their own story of doom and gloom. If you can attack Hubbert's reasoning in his paper please do…given you haven’t read it I’m not sure how that is possible.

It's not that Hubbert should have, but defunct groups like The Oil Drum and ASPO definitely should have. They treated Hubbert's curve as too much gospel and did not incorporate new data.

Which has frig all to do with Hubbert. Don’t blame him for the misinterpretations of his analysis decades after the fact.

The thread is about improving peak oil credibility, not about protecting the posthumous reputation of the late M. King Hubbert

Well it shouldn’t be about accusal false accussal either, which is precisely what a few idiots here who apparently don’t actually understand the evolution of the theory or its applications have attempted. One needs to get facts straight first.

People tend to want to turn their brains off and follow individual prophets.

Given you apparently, haven’t read Hubbert's work then I’m not sure what rationale you have claiming he was some sort of self-proclaimed prophet. When he wrote his papers on the subject it was an academic pursuit…he wasn’t proposing gloom or doom but simply pointing out that non-renewable resources have a limited life which is hardly debatable.
If you want to attack Hubbert's work then read the damned paper and comment on where you believe his interpretation of data on hand was wrong. If you want to attack the pundits who referenced his work decades after the fact and spun their own interpretations then do so as it was their interpretation you apparently have an issue with.

[asg70]

Horseshit. Did you actually read his paper?

Apparently you didn't read my post. Hubbert's work and how it was seized by the peak-oil movement are two different things.

Which has frig all to do with Hubbert. Don’t blame him for the misinterpretations of his analysis decades after the fact.

RTF thread title. This is not a referrendum on M King Hubbert. It's about understanding why peak oil lost credibility.

Does that have any relevance to you or do you just want to burnish Hubbert's image as a scholar?

Well it shouldn’t be about accusal false accussal either

Fanboi...detected.

he wasn’t proposing gloom or doom

You're looking at a dead movement because of how his work was used to sell a gloom and doom narrative.

Do you have a problem with that thesis or not?

[marmico]

If you want to attack Hubbert's work then read the damned paper and comment on where you believe his interpretation of data on hand was wrong

He fucked up Persian Gulf URR badly.



Hubbert's world URR forecast was 1250 gigabarrels peaking at 13 gigabarrels annual production in 2000. The world has produced ~1500 gigabarrels to date and ~28 gigabarrels annual production and counting.

[rockdoc123]

He fucked up Persian Gulf URR badly.

"He" didn't screw up, he simply took the numbers that were generally accepted at the time. He did not predict EUR, he simply took the assumed reserves and then plugged that into the logistic curve to arrive at the date at which production would peak. Please show us a quote from Hubbert regarding a prediction for Persian Gulf URR.

Not sure what it is with you folks who love to criticize analyses but can't be bothered to actually read what was done.

[marmico]

Please show us a quote from Hubbert regarding a prediction for Persian Gulf URR.

Page 15: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/Hubbert/1956/1956.pdf

...the estimate of the ultimate potential reserves of crude oil in the Middle East has been increased to 375 billion barrels, which can only be regarded as a rough order-of-magnitude figure

Don't play stoopidfookenretard with me. Hubbert's prediction was a world peak of 36 mb/d in 2000. The world produced ~69 mb/d in 2000 of which the Persian Gulf was ~20 mb/d.

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/mo ... ec11_5.pdf

[rockdoc123]

Don't play stoopidfookenretard with me. Hubbert's prediction was a world peak of 36 mb/d in 2000. The world produced ~69 mb/d in 2000 of which the Persian Gulf was ~20 mb/d.

don't be an ass. Hubbert did not predict any reserves. He used the reserve figures that others had estimated and fit them to his model.

To be specific he used estimated world crude oil based on Lewis Weeks work.

These estimates of ultimate potential reserves are, with two exceptions, those obtained by L.G. Weeks (1948, 1950a, 1950b, 1952), of the Standard Oil Company of New jersey, in his detailed studies of the various sedimentary basins of the world.

The increase you refer to is the number he obtained from work which came after Week’s assessment, that of Wallace Pratt. You conveniently cheery picked part of the paragraph and left out the part that explains what was done:

Recently Wallace E. Pratt (1956), in the Report of the Panel on the Impact of the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, gas as the proved reserves of liquid hydrocarbons for the Middle East the figure of 230 billion barrels. Since probably not less than 200 billion barrels of this is represented by crude oil, the estimate of the ultimate potential reserves of crude oil in the Middle East has been increased to 375 billion barrels,

He did not predict those reserves from his models….he used Pratts number along with an estimate of what had already been produced to arrive at the 375 billion barrel figure.

So we are clear Hubbert never predicted URR, he took published estimates of URR as his assumptions which were plugged into his logistic curves to arrive at a peak date. Given there were significant global discoveries following Hubberts publication which were beyond the predictions of Weeks or Pratt it isn't surprising the peak date and level was incorrect. On the contrary in the US case the information on EUR that was input for conventional oil did not change appreciably through time, hence his correct estimate of the 1970 peak.

[Plantagenet]

Hubbert .... took published estimates of URR as his assumptions which were plugged into his logistic curves to arrive at a peak date.

Hubbert estimated the world would reach peak oil ca. 2000. Bzzzzzt! He was wrong.

in the US case .... his correct estimate of the 1970 peak.

Bzzzzzt! Wrong again.--- Oil production in the US is higher today then in 1970 so the all-time peak in US oil production clearly didn't actually occur in 1970 as you claim.

Cheers!


PS: You are apparently so obvious to the real world that you've been able to post here for 13 years without ever figuring out what Peak Oil means or understanding what in heck people here were talking about. Or maybe you knew once but now you've forgotten what it means. In either case, that shows a truly remarkable lack of comprehension on your part. Congratulations! That amount of obliviousness is just amazing!!

[rockdoc123]

PS: You are apparently so obvious to the real world that you've been able to post here for 13 years without ever figuring out what Peak Oil means or understanding what in heck people here were talking about. Or maybe you knew once but now you've forgotten what it means. In either case, that shows a truly remarkable lack of comprehension on your part. Congratulations! That amount of obliviousness is just amazing!!

look dipshit, I knew about Peak oil back when you were the mistake your parents made. One of my thesis supervisors worked for Hubbert and another one was there at the API conference when Hubbert first unveiled the idea. Those of us who have worked in the industry for many decades have known about the concept for far longer than this website has ever been around.

MY point is and has always been that given the information that Hubbert had at the time he was bang on with his prediction of a peak for conventional oil in 1970. Are you now arguing that oil from conventional reservoirs did not peak in 1970? Are you arguing that oil is not a finite reserve? It seems you are arguing that Hubbert should have been expected to have a crystal ball in which he could see all the new discoveries and unconventional oil. He was very clear in his paper that his model was based on an assumption of ultimate oil reserves to be discovered. He didn't make that assessment, others did. His contribution was in showing that given a finite resource there has to be a predictable peak and life. Are you arguing that is incorrect?

What it seems you are arguing is that Hubbert didn't have the right URR data for all oil in the US including that in unconventional reservoirs. Please explain to us how he failed by not including data that there was no possible way without some sort of time machine he could have had?

Or is it just the stupid view that there can only be one peak. I showed you already how Hubbert and others have indicated several peaks are possible.

If you can tear apart Hubberts paper so so, otherwise why not just shut the hell up.