ROCKMAN wrote:ralfie – All I can do is repeat the same point over and over: Hubbert was predicting the peak production of those fields that comprised the population he was modeling. And yes, those fields were primarily conventional reservoirs…but not entirely. And again folks should read his report again: he specifically points out that his model does not include trends that have not been developed yet. Such as the shales and the offshore. The shales such as the Eagle Ford which had been proven to be insignificant AT THAT TIME. And the offshore which was in the very earliest stage of analysis.
His prediction of those fields he modeled has been proven correct. In fact, amazingly accurate. But as I’ve pointed out before: not meaning to minimize his projection those fields were already very mature and, for the most part, were at or close to their individual peak production. As far as secondary recovery efforts go they might change the decline side of the curve but it’s impossible for them to change the peak timing. Over decades they might add significant cumulative production but at such a slow rate to be meaningless in terms of the peak timing.
As global PO I don’t tend to pull apart his analysis since I’m not as familiar with foreign fields as I am with those in the US. But given very significant trends that developed after his report I suspect that’s were most if not all of the projection proved inaccurate.
Another point to consider is the cost (in terms of energy and money) to increase production thanks to these new sources. That means considering major advances from the time Hubbert wrote his report and even participated in an interview during the 1970s and the growth of a global middle class coupled with services, infrastructure, and consumer goods that require more material resources and energy, not to mention increasing debts to cover these plus the cost of getting more oil.
