sparky wrote:.
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 .
aldente wrote: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 !
regardingpo wrote:sparky wrote:.
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 .
Exactly. The only people who say Hubbert was wrong are the ones who don't even know what he was talking about. Or they're trying to set up a strawman argument.
ROCKMAN wrote: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.
pstarr wrote:Is that right? Hubbet modeled imaginary reserves. Wow! I like to see that reference, please. I am interested.AdamB wrote:ROCKMAN wrote: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.
We've done this before Rockman. Hubbert had more UNDISCOVERED fields in his US analysis than he did existing known reserves.
pstarr wrote: Please illustrate with references. Thanks in advance.
pstarr wrote:I rather doubt that shale NG was represented in the data that Hubbert modeled as folks were not producing tight shale then. Just as folks today are not producing off-planet NGL's. So we don't include those in resource or reserve counts.
Hey Adam, fess up . . . it's all BS right?
ROCKMAN wrote: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.
Rockman wrote: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.
pstarr wrote:Come 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.
pstarr wrote: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.
pstarr wrote:AdamB wrote:But you aren't really interested in knowing anything on this topic right? A little too much "instructional" work in your past perhaps?
Come on Adam. No one here is interested in your 'instructional' work . . . because it is so much BS.
And 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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests