On his chart, peak was shown as 40 billion barrels of oil a year. He was pretty generous considering current levels, at peak, are about 31 billion barrels a year.

In 1976, that was a valid assumption, as world production was still tracking a perfect bell curve. It was the Iranian Revolution in 1979 which cut off the top of the curve and moved peak back 10-15 years. He was actually correct, just not in a position to predict political events and their impact.

The more I view this, the more I love it.

He ANTICIPATED the objections people throw around now! He foresaw that the embargos of the 70s would delay the peak "about ten years."

He was no prophet, just a great forecaster, probably the sine qua non of a great scientist.

However, one thing is critical to keep in mind. If you are going to use the model for forecasting, the model must be tested. Testing the model is called “validation”, or sometimes “back-casting.” This involves feeding the model real data, and observing how well the predictions match up with the observations. If the predictions match up on a consistent basis, and any large variations are explainable, you have the makings of a predictive model. If you have not validated your model, or if you have attempted to validate it and found that the predictions were inconsistent, the model should be used with caution (if at all). In this essay I have done some back-casts on the Hubbert Linearization (HL) model and attempted to use it to make predictions using historical data.
....http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2357#more

This article/essay brings up the problems associated with trying to use HL techniques for forecasting. It is a very good essay and brought up a lot of points that I had previously not known about. Thoughts??

1. The article does not begin with however.

About the article, this is a known issue, and pointed out by experts about how it does not take into account technology and future discoveries. The counter argument which was not discuss in that article is that it takes a lot of new oil to change the peak date by any significant margin.

Of course, if you take any major oil producing region and see historical records with two or more peaks, then you will be showing HL's weakness in predicting peak oil production. HL is never good at predicting URR.

However the point raised was in reference to the current post not the cited article

Note the original poster on this thread started the "written communication" with however.

For clarification the respondant did not claim the article refrenced started with however.

I also found it an interesting way to introduce the topic, and shall endeavor to use this writing technique in the future LOL

I am surprised how many people trust HL blindly.

Sorry. The first paragraph of the essay wasn't really good for beginning the HL discussion so I started with "However..." The comments at the bottom are mine and I can't wait to read part two.

However, that's good.

However I read Gideon's comment, I was just pointing out that the article did not begin with however.

However, you read my comment to mean I have an issue with it, which is not my intention.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2389#more

The case for peak oil does not rest on so-called Hubbert Linearization.

This is your classic straw man argument. HL is a recent development.

there is much more convincing evidence.

Oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s. Extraction necessarily follows discovery.

65% of all oil producing regions are in confirmed decline.

13 (and maybe even a full 14) of the top super giant fields in the world are in confirmed decline.

Since 1982, discovery has not kept pace with extraction. The annual discovery of +500 mmb fields has dropped off to nearly nothing.

Hubbert originally predicted that world oil would peak in 1995. When the embargos of the 70s happened, and realizing that oil was staying in the ground, he amended his prediction to "about ten years later."

There is little to no spare capacity. In 2005, the Saudis announced they were producing flat out. The head of OPEC at the time said "There is no more oil."

The frontiers of oil extraction now consist of ultra-deep water, tar sands scrubbing, and extra-heavy Orinoco. In short, we are rolling our pennies.

Finally, if your criticisms of "Hubbert" linearization mean you don't think peak is here, then by all means, don't prepare for it.

It's that simple.


P.S. If you argue that "this is not my view but the view in the article," then you fail the assignment for not quoting correctly. This is plagiarism, whether you realize it or not.

Accuracte conclusion. Once we are airborn the curve does not at all reflect an anticipated Hubbert 'bell' but rather a Hubbert cliff.

Neither myself, nor the author of the article believe that peak oil is far away. In fact I personally believe in a bumpy plateau from 2005-2008/10 followed by a 2-4% decline. However, recently there was an article by westexas stating that SA may be 70% depleted based upon HL technique. The point is simply that the HL technique may not be that accurate at predicting URR and, hence, peaks. That being said Deffeyes was fairly accurate (as long as the EIA data supports him) in a peak in 2005. My belief is that it will be a slow decline that snowballs and speeds up over time. That's all.

I agree with you, but this whole issue has been a distracting tempest in a tea kettle.