278 comments on Does the Hubbert Linearization Ever Work?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
278 comments on Does the Hubbert Linearization Ever Work?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than in trying to solve them.”
—Henry Ford
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Memmel,
Robert has an interesting point though. As he accurately describes a situation (Oilsville) with a flat production rate, what happens is that the width of the upside down parabola begins to increase; i.e. the second derivative of the production profile starts shrinking.
This kicks the y-intercept further and further into the future. Which you can mathematically see in that blog post of mine that you referenced.
Actually in the case you mentioned HL still works since the
peak comes down as the curve flattens. So as long as its a parabola your ok.
Generally flat production happens on the backside when production is constrained the case I use is a well that 90% watered out and the rate of production is constrained by how much water you can handle.
HL is not a good method once your constrained by above ground factors. Remember there is still a lot of oil left behind even after a well has watered out so its being produced at a low production rate basically forever for all intents and purposes. But where it fails your way past peak production anyway so whats the point ?
You can also of course come up with a number of contrived cases where a field is not reasonably exploited and these would show a flat production at the beginning. I don't know of a real world case that fits this.
One we have is Russia which collapsed where production collapsed for several years then rebounded slowly. And this one is problematic.
I might add there is a chance here to have a good discussion on HL and it needs to be examined but lets at the minimum start the discussion with the right baseline in place.
I have not varied all the constant volume parabolas to see if you can introduce some numerical instability into the procedure but mathematically all your doing is a trick integration of the parabola so all true parabolas with the same area give the same answer.
The real important piece that gets dropped on the floor it seems like is Hubbert is assuming a parabola or Gaussian shaped distribution the area under the curve is a constant
this makes the "date" of peak a constant just the shape of the curve is changing so what really changes is the amount produced at peak but this is not so important. If you have enough points on the curve then you can get both. I don't understand the choice of the logistic function over others but as I've said a few times I don't think it matters to much given the quality of the data. HL has real issues that should be addressed. They have not so far.
In any case you have to use curves the might is well be parabolas since you taylor expand with constant volume/URR
and linearize those the get the numerical instability.
Other curves i.e Gaussian are interesting but this is secondary. What Robert has shown so far is not that interesting.