 | Does the Hubbert Linearization Ever Work? | The Oil Drum | From sweet on the table to fuel in the tank: the millenary history of Sugar Cane |  |
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“Of all races in an advanced stage of civilization, the American is the least accessible to long views… Always and everywhere in a hurry to get rich, he does not give a thought to remote consequences; he sees only present advantages… He does not remember, he does not feel, he lives in a materialist dream.”
—Moiseide Ostrogorski (1902, 302-303)
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- 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
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- UK Energy Flow Chart 2007
- Brown pretends to be tough on Russia
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
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
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
As a frequent reader and infrequent contributor, I think it's very sad that one of the most distinguished contributors should be subjected to such abuse. Constructive criticism is always valuable but what Robert has quoted above does not fit that definition in any way. I do not blame him for reacting as he has - I would probably do the same myself.
I think it is only appropriate to extend the same thoughts to WT and Dave Cohen. Robert's work was not judged any harsher than the others. When you put yourself out there, you need to expect critics.
First I stand by every statement I made about the post no problem this is a crappy post. It has obvious problems. I've said the same in private and make no apology in public.
Good arguments questioning HL can and have been made this is not one of them.
If personal attacks have been made I'm sorry.
And I'm done with the post.
I didn't read your comments on Robert's "crappy" post. In fact, I didn't even read the post.
Hubbert modelling provides a non-physical view of the oil supply. I've always thought that if one was going to write about the oil & gas business, one should know something about it, including the oil price, which depends on the economics of supply & demand, or various "aboveground" events or factors. Many things can disrupt a Hubbert curve. Never let reality get in the way of a beautiful theory. Furthermore, reserves growth does happen. The US is the best example of that, being the most mature oil province in the world.
There is a problem with assuming a normal distribution (as in Hubbert modelling) for global oil production, which can only follow from a mathematical result called the Central Limit Theorem. Not the least of these problems is what one defines as "oil". Another problem is what one defines as the domain for the analysis in cases where one is dealing with something smaller than the whole Earth. But if one is talking about our happy, little Planet, the factors I talked about in the paragraph just above are paramount.
I was in the habit, when I posted here, of talking about pertinent and important details about the oil & gas business, and mentioning specific fields or trends. That was not (apparently) a popular thing to do, at least with the "regulars" who comment on this site. I could care less.
If you or others insist on carrying out this mediocre, simplistic mathematical analysis, so be it. But, that's all the worse for The Oil Drum, which becomes more marginalized as a result. Try a creaming curve, sometime. Look at how the people whose livelihoods depend on this (in the oil business) do things. Reflecting a bit, this is a civilization in decline. I can always find examples, like much of the discourse on this website, that are "close to home".
"If you or others insist on carrying out this mediocre, simplistic mathematical analysis, so be it. But, that's all the worse for The Oil Drum, which becomes more marginalized as a result. Try a creaming curve, sometime."
Dave,
Good, relevant points on HL. However, there's an important facet to the issue of HL and modeling that I haven't seen brought up much.
Is TOD an experts-only forum?
What I mean by this is that, if it's only for those with the background to really dig into the geophysics and assorted heavy-duty modeling approaches, than it should be stated as such. From what I gather, many here aren't experts in petrogeology or the operation of an oil company, but are people from many walks of life who are seriously trying to understand the underlying issues, and look forward to those moments when the experts communicate something meaningful to help them better grasp the problems at hand.
Robert stated that he's interested in educating people about the real problem of Peak Oil to hopefully give them what amounts to the "real story" (if you will) to help in making a well-informed decision about whether-or-not to act (these aren't his exact words--but I gather from what he said that it's something like this). Or, is his focus just for the experts, the ones who care about, and have the background for understanding, all the little details and whatsits involved with developing an iron-clad case for peak-now or peak-later? Or is it both?
"this mediocre, simplistic mathematical analysis"
You stated it yourself. Mediocre and simplistic might be the strongest features going for HL, because those words suggest that HL might be the easiest model for the greatest number of people to follow. Think about it. If many folk are having trouble understanding HL, then it's likely they'll even have more trouble understanding a model that's more complex. Would the general population be more convinced by the simple model, or more complex one? The answer, of course, isn't straightforward or necessarily obvious. People themselves are complex. But I think you can get the gist of what I'm suggesting here.
What's your audience? What will make the greatest number within this audience at least accept the potential dangers enough to give Peak Oil serious consideration?
-best,
Wolf
Re: Good arguments questioning HL can and have been made this is not one of them
I don't mean to mischaracterize your position. Apparently, you have not drunk the "kool-aid" ala Jim Jones. Sorry if I misrepresented your views in my zeal to mock a mathematical, abstract simplification of a complex reality — world oil production.
Well then Dave lets see the "real deal". I can only assume that there are many other models out there, perhaps they are propriotery, but the debate on Huberts curve bugs you guys so much then lets see something better. I'm no petro guy but can follow most of what goes on. I thought fractional_flow was like a breath of fresh air and I also noticed very little debate from you senior guys. He said ghanwar(sp?) was 70% depleated, that is huge! and there was very little comments to the contrary...
I think it is very easy to understand oil is finite for most people, especially those in the US where we now import 60%+/- of our oil and have our youths involved in a nasty(oil) war. Most people can follow that oil must reach a peak in extraction and decline, just like the US.
I have tried baiting this question before with no response, so I will try again. I think alot of people are tired of the bickering, and I think this includes you. I have a solution...
IF YOU THINK HUBERTS CURVE IS A BAD MODEL THEN SHOW US SOMETHING BETTER.
A good model, in my view, would be along the lines of those developed to predict the economy. (Many of which currently say we are headed for recession). Of course, greater attention would have to paid to oil supply and demand issues than might be common at present.