The primary flaw in Hubbert-type models is a reliance on URR as a static number rather than a dynamic variable, changing with technology, knowledge, infrastructure and other factors, but primarily growing. Campbell and Laherrere claim to have developed better analytical methods to resolve this problem, but their own estimates have been increasing, and increasingly rapidly.
cipi604 wrote:Yeah, I may have a comment on this one:The primary flaw in Hubbert-type models is a reliance on URR as a static number rather than a dynamic variable, changing with technology, knowledge, infrastructure and other factors, but primarily growing. Campbell and Laherrere claim to have developed better analytical methods to resolve this problem, but their own estimates have been increasing, and increasingly rapidly.
and it's a short one
The flaw about URR is that you believe that technology can save the actual infrastructure and we can grow again.
We've already peaked, get over it , fast! or else.
Zero-point wrote:The New Pessimism about Petroleum Resources:
Debunking the Hubbert Model
(and Hubbert Modelers)
Michael C. Lynch
http://www.gasresources.net/Lynch(Hubbert-Deffeyes).htm
Has anyone read that paper? Any comments? He makes a very good case and if I'm not mistaken all peak oil is based on Hubbert type models which are flawed and not based on real oil production and related influences.
ROCKMAN wrote:Zero,
I’ll offer some insights re: this report based upon 34 years as a petroleum geologist. This doesn’t make me an expert but does show I have some base knowledge.
Rockman wrote:I can promise you that there is more oil left to produce in the world then the most optimistic have offered. But it means nothing if it’s produced at a rate that does not support the needs of the world’s economies.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
ROCKMAN wrote:
Excellent rewrite of that statement IMO. I think that's where some folks get confused about the implication of PO. When demand destruction hits like it just has
shortonsense wrote: If demand/consumption can be kept under total rate, total rate doesn't matter. Its just that easy, and presto, PO is irrelevant.
Michael Lynch wrote:...while the bell curve is not necessarily the precise path likely to be followed, its presence is hardly proof of an immutable, natural, scientifically-determined law.
So now we have accurate laws regarding how demand/supply will behave? I wasn't aware psychology/economics/etc had advanced that much.TommyJefferson wrote:It's the opposite. Immutable, natural, scientifically-determined law specifies the curve, not the other way around.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
ROCKMAN wrote:Now those are fighten' words short!!!!
On the one hand, demand can never exceed max production rate if you define "demand" as what the consumer can afford to pay. If OPEC were to magically loose 10 million bopd delivery tomorrow then oil would shoot through the roof again...let's say $200 bbl. The only buyers will be those who can afford that price. Thus demand will be met.
yesplease wrote:So now we have accurate laws regarding how demand/supply will behave?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests