Quote from: comrade simba on Jan 20, 2025, 04:35 PMHubbert's graph peaks at 12.5 billion barrels a year. He just stopped the upward slope of the bell curve too soon.

He did. But he did it because, using the method he used and outlined in that paper, he HAD to. The volume output was the result of his independent variable, which was the presumed oil reserves and resources available. Without it being larger than it was, he couldn't get the peak higher.

It is one of the HUGE disadvantages of this method. Another is that a US free market development scheme is active, which is NOT the case for most countries.

Quote from: comrad simbaThe real thing to be argued is when the top of the curve is / will be reached.

It already has been, for the world anyway. Peak oil, the most current one, and #6 claimed or occurred this century, was 2018. We've been living in a post peak world for 7 years now. <yawn>

The record for the world living in the post peak era is closer to 15 years, as global peak oil in 1979 wasn't surpassed until somewhere in the 1993-1994 timeframe, if memory serves.

Quote from: comrade simbaI personally figure the west's reserves will decline (frak magic no more) at the same rate arctic/Russian oil will come on line. Decay in the west, progress in the ROW for a generation (13 - 20 years)

Hubbert's method wasn't about reserves, those numbers are way too small to generate any of the peaks he claimed. He needed to start with resources, and then work backward into reserves+resource numbers. As peakers all know, part and parcel of this is the reserve growth problem. That was figured out by the USGS more than a decade ago now, so one of the new things needed to do when trying to figure out global oil production is the resource to reserve conversion ratio. That work was completed by the EIA in the late 201X's, and the USGS was already using it in a less granular leve in 2012 for their World Assessment update of that year.