Khebab-
A very good addition to your past work. We need new analytic techniques that are robust in the face of small data samples of dubious quality.

The technique clearly works to fit a curve, but which curve should we use? Deffeyes thinks that Hubbert himself played with multiple curves until he found one he liked. Heading Out and Westexas would know, but I assume that different geologic structures would have differing distributions of fields and sizes, and hence different  curvatures. If so, we could apply the correct parameter based on the geology of a region to estimate its URR.

Some data for an additional play: Chris Skrebowski's October 2005 megaprojects review lists (by my count) 87 new projects that detail both reserves and expected peak flow rate. Since it's worldwide data, these fields ought to be self-similar.

Thanks for your continuing efforts.

Heading Out and Westexas would know, but I assume that different geologic structures would have differing distributions of fields and sizes, and hence different  curvatures. If so, we could apply the correct parameter based on the geology of a region to estimate its URR.

The self-similarity principle states that a subset of fields belonging to a particular region (ex: the UK) behave like the whole (ex: the World). Now, because URR estimate is dependent on the recovery technique which is dependent on the field size, we will observe a deviation from the self-similarity.
Some data for an additional play: Chris Skrebowski's October 2005 megaprojects review lists (by my count) 87 new projects that detail both reserves and expected peak flow rate. Since it's worldwide data, these fields ought to be self-similar.

Probably, but you need not only the new projects but also all the past projects comparable in size otherwise the ranking will be biased due to missing fields. Secondly, these new projects are in the giant-subgiant field category and are therefore harder to track because of their large number.