[eXpat]

...
No one who cares for the truth would give this industry shill a moment's notice. He is here to disassemble and shed doubts on a serious subject. Ignore him.

[KingM]

If you are going to continually dismiss a poster as an "industry shill," you need to back it up with evidence.

Besides which, I would expect an industry shill to scream Peak Oil at every opportunity. Fear drives up cost and it would also increase pressure to open up pristine areas for drilling. What the cornucopians are doing is the exact opposite of what I would expect an industry shill to do.

[dolanbaker]

I would have said the opposite tbh.
n oil shill would be keen to state how high reserves are and how it will be available for a long time so that consumers won't worry about future shortages or price spikes.

[TheDude]

Ohio's secondary peak in the 1980s was 45 kb/d, not exactly a big factor in the worldwide picture. The blog Graphoilogy had a post examining which nations fit HL profiles, if you're interested. The tally was about evenly split between Fits well/Doesn't Fit Well/Too early to say. Lots of nations rebound for whatever reason, this isn't news. It's like accusing climate scientists of ignoring the sun; grow up or go away, please.

[eastbay]

No one who cares for the truth would give this industry shill a moment's notice. He is here to disassemble and shed doubts on a serious subject. Ignore him.

Oh c'mon now. It can't be true!

[Xenophobe]

Ohio's secondary peak in the 1980s was 45 kb/d, not exactly a big factor in the worldwide picture.

Nope. But what it was, was an example of Hubbert's concept of peak oil over a large, and depleted, geolographical area which had been explored for nearly a century when he wrote his 1956 paper. Those types of areas aren't supposed to try and repeak. Thats why Hubbert used them.

The blog Graphoilogy had a post examining which nations fit HL profiles, if you're interested. The tally was about evenly split between Fits well/Doesn't Fit Well/Too early to say. Lots of nations rebound for whatever reason, this isn't news. It's like accusing climate scientists of ignoring the sun; grow up or go away, please.

I am aware of the website. Now go back and add up which ones don't fit well by their remaining reserves and see where all the oil actually is. When I did that I came up with a volume weighted % of countries which DON'T give a rats behind about Hubberts "model". The conclusion being, the real oil volumes don't follow a Hubbert profile. So much for that model...waiter...NEXT!

[Xenophobe]

xeno is unwilling or incapable of understanding a simple fact, that Hubbert's model is an approximation of the truth, a tool used to try and understand and analyze complex geologic/political/economic forces that vary worldwide. That is how science works. A search for truth.

Pstarr, lecturing on facts and truth. What irony.

Perhaps we shall start with the basics, considering the opposition.

"Although M. King Hubbert's work was advanced for his time, the reported success of his prediction of the year of peak US oil production has been overrated and is more than balanced by a lack of success in other predictions."

Charpentier, R.R., 2005, Estimating undiscovered resources and reserve growth: contrasting approaches, Petroleum Geology Conference Series 2005; v. 6, p. 3-9

For those who only look at picture books, I recommend Fig. 5.

Hubbert prediction of natural gas peak based on a 1969 estimate (the date matters, because his prior estimates were horribly worse) through 2003.

This graph goes with the quoted explanation above, and almost makes it through that
horrifying time period in 2005 known only as ....... THE NATURAL GAS CLIFF IN AMERICA!! Extra points for those who can plot Hubberts 1956 gas "model" against reality and come up with the number of TCF's he is off by in 2009....a clue for...the special people...in the group....the DIFFERENCE is larger than Hubberts actual predicted TOTAL peak size at that point in time)

PS: For those not familiar with THE NATURAL GAS CLIFF IN AMERICA!!! it was yet another neo-Malthusian scare tactic by people who couldn't be bothered to take the time to study previously published geologic literature on the topic, read the history of natural gas production in America and its basis in unconventional natual gas, and who didn't have the mathematical ability to count the actual rigs drilling for natural gas in Texas at the time. Why? you might ask? Good question. Ask a neo-Malthusian, its not like you can hide one of these under a sagebrush or something.

[Xenophobe]

overrated

can you quantify that?

But of course, my dear ostrich.

Charpentier, R.R., 2005, Estimating undiscovered resources and reserve growth: contrasting approaches, Petroleum Geology Conference Series 2005; v. 6, p. 3-9

For those who only look at picture books, I recommend Fig. 5.

[Xenophobe]

No. I am not asking for another link but a defense of his work and your analysis.

I did not provide a link. I provided a reference for commentary on the quantification of Hubbert's work. Within the scientific community when you talk about a conclusion, or someone's data, or someone else's analysis, you provide appropriate credit so that those who follow your work know the basis for any comment or analysis.

In this case, I provided the background and no analysis other than noting the conclusions drawn by qualified scientists who work for the same organization Hubbert did, who specialize in the type of resource estimating that Hubbert did, and who know more about this than either of us.

Put it in perspective and show us how this single outlier, a long depleted SEC-regulated exception in Ohio, is an analog for to the world's declining oil regions.

do that. or shut up.

Quite a challenge....if you had reviewed the scientific literature provided you would already know I have done that...for the worldest largest consumer of natural gas, one of the oldest users of natural gas, and currently the 2nd largest producer of natural gas in the world. A country which has been producing this resource for approximately 189 years now.

Within the scientific community it is considered bad form to be handed a reference explaining exactly what was claimed, and then to not even look at it prior to asking a question which has already been answered. In picture form no less, such that reading isn't an issue for the picturebook/comic book enthusiasts.

Figure 5. Would you like me to reference the work again, or do you know how to use the up arrow button on your keyboard so you can go find it higher up in the thread?

[Keith_McClary]

Ignore him.

This will save you a lot of scrolling and pages may load faster:

User Control Panel --> Friends and foes --> Manage foes

[Xenophobe]

This Charpentier creep is one of you shale-scam buddies. Quite the credentials. Real impressive.

Fortunately for me I use peer reviewed, extensively published, and experienced people in my references.

Have you discovered why Figure 5 matters yet belittling ad hom deleted?