jeremy boak, director center for oil shale technology...
TRANSCRIPT
Jeremy Boak, Director Center for Oil Shale Technology & Research
Peak of United States oil production predicted many times
“The United States Geological Survey makes the pessimistic report that our underground reserves are forty percent exhausted and that we probably are near the peak of domestic production” ‣ Victor Alderson, President of the Colorado School of Mines
quoting a United States Bureau of Mines report to the Secretary of the Treasury, in the Colorado School of Mines Quarterly October 1919
The Hubbert prediction ‣ M. King Hubbert, a Shell geophysicist rightly famous
for several important contributions to geosciences ‣ Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels, published in
early 1956 ‣ Recognized that estimates of ultimate cumulative
production (Qt), the area under the production history curve, strongly constrain future production ‣ Projected peak of U. S. production in about 1965,
based upon best estimate for Qt of ~150 BBO ‣ Using Qt of 200 BBO delayed peak until about 1970
Hubbert (1956) prediction of U. S. oil production
OGJ 1859-2009 OGJ 1859-1955
1965 1970
Hubbert (1956) prediction of U. S. oil production
Other contemprary predictions of U. S. production peak
Author Year of Prediction
Predicted Peak Year
Ultimate Cumulative Production (BBO)
President’s Materials Production Commission
1952 1963 1967
Ayres 1953 1960 1970
100 200
Hubbert 1956 1965 1970
150 200
Four logistic (Hubbert) curve fits to 1955 data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040
Prod
uctio
n (M
MBO
PD)
Cumulative = 300 BBO Cumulative = 250 BBO Cumulative = 200 BBO Cumulative = 150 BBO U. S. Production 1859-1955 U. S. Production 1956-2009
Hubbert (1956) prediction for global oil production (Qt = 1250 BBO)
Global production
Hubbert (1956) prediction for global oil production (current cum. = 1,128 BBO)
The Hubbert model (after Deffeyes, Brandt)
‣ Oil production controlled by total oil that can be produced, the ultimate cumulative production (Qt), or “initial reserve.” ‣ Economic, political, and technological effects
produce variability, but are not fundamental to the relationship; ‣ Production is related to Qt by plotting the ratio (P/Q)
of annual production (P) to cumulative production (Q) against cumulative production;
The Hubbert model (after Deffeyes, Brandt)
‣ Relationship is linear with negative slope and Q-axis intercept at Qt: P/Q = a – (a / Qt) * Q
P= annual production; a = P/Q-axis intercept of the P/Q vs. Q plot; Q = cumulative production; Qt = ultimate cumulative production (Q-axis intercept of the P/Q vs. Q plot)
‣ Production defined by: P = a * (1 - Q/Qt) * Q
where 1-Q/Qt is the fraction remaining to be produced
‣ Recasting the Production equation: ‣ P = a * Q – (a/Qt) * Q2
Hubbert curve fit to U. S. production from 1859-2009
y = -0.0007x2 + 0.159x R² = 0.98865
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Prod
uctio
n (M
MBO
PD)
Cumulative Production (BBO)
U. S. Production Hubbert curve fit
Retrospective testing of predictions ‣ Using the Hubbert (logistic) curve formulation, fit the
curve for each year, using the data up to that year ‣ Data sets:
– Oil and Gas Journal U. S. Historic Production, 1859-2009
– IHS World Liquids Production, 1853-2007, courtesy of Pete Stark
‣ Performance measures: – Coefficient of determination (r2) – goodness of fit
– Cumulative production at peak (equal to half of Qt)
– Peak date
– Ten year prediction
Goodness of fit to U. S. production data
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010
Coe
ffic
ient
of D
eter
min
atio
n (r
2 )
Goodness of fit to global production data
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010
Coe
ffic
ient
of de
term
inat
ion
(r2 )
Hubbert 1853 Deffeyes 1983
Hubbert curve predictions of U. S. cumulative production at peak
0
100
200
300
400
0
50
100
150
200
1850 1900 1950 2000
Ulti
mat
e Cum
. Pr
oduc
tion
(BBO
)
Cum
. Pr
oduc
tion
at P
eak
(BBO
)
Hubbert peak projections U. S. cumulative production 1975 Cumulative 1970 Cumulative
Hubbert curve sometimes produces unrealistic curve fits
y = 0.007x2 + 0.1949x R² = 0.99013
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 10 20 30 40 50
Prod
uctio
n (M
MBO
PD)
Cumulative Production
U. S. Production 1859-1952 U. S. Production, 1859-1925 Hubbert curve 1859-1925
Hubbert curve predictions of global cumulative production at peak
0
1000
2000
3000
0
500
1,000
1,500
1850 1900 1950 2000
Ulti
mat
e Cum
. Pr
oduc
tion
(BBO
)
Cum
. Pr
oduc
tion
at P
eak
(BBO
) Global Cumulative Hubbert 1853 Deffeyes 1983
Hubbert curve predictions of U. S. peak date
1870
1890
1910
1930
1950
1970
1990
2010
1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010
Proj
ecte
d Pe
ak
Hubbert projections Present date 10 years out 1970 1975
Hubbert curve predictions of global peak date
1850
1900
1950
2000
1850 1900 1950 2000
Peak
Dat
e
Year
10 years out Current year 10 years past Hubbert 1853 Deffeyes 1983
Hubbert curve predictions of U. S. production ten years out
0
5
10
1850 1900 1950 2000
Prod
uctio
n (M
MBO
PD)
U. S. Production
10 Year Hubbert Projection
Hubbert curve predictions of global production ten years out
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1850 1900 1950 2000
Prod
uctio
n (M
MBBO
PD)
Global Production
10 Year Projection 1853
10 Year Projection 1983
Hubbert curve and exponential decline curves for U. S. production
y = 2.2x1021*e-0.0237 R² = 0.968
0.1
1
10
1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050
Dai
ly P
rodu
ctio
n (M
MBO
PD)
U. S. Annual Production Hubbert 1859-2009 U. S. Production 1985-2009 Exponential 1985-2009
Conclusions ‣ Fitting a logistic curve (the Hubbert model) to
production data for United States and the world: – produces projections of peak cumulative and ultimate cumulative
production that generally increase through time, even more than thirty years after the U. S. peak is reached;
– Produces peak dates: ‧ In the past or less than ten years out for nearly every year from the 1880s
until the peak is reached, for U. S. and global production ‧ Increasing slowly nearly four decades after the U. S. peak
– Produces predictions for production ten years out that are less than actual production in that year: ‧ for all but 2 years from 1897 to 2006 in the U. S. (especially low and
variable in the vicinity of the peak) ‧ for all but 16 years from 1879-2007 for global production
Conclusions ‣ Hubbert model widely cited, especially in less
technical literature (Wikipedia, etc.) ‣ No other model has been tested in this manner ‣ One other model in preliminary testing ‣ More complex models will be harder to test ‣ Inherently symmetric models appear unlikely to
provide an adequate description of future for U. S. or global production ‣ Hubbert model may provide a reasonable floor for
predictions 10 years out
An alternative model and uncertainty
0.01
0.1
1
10
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
MM
BOPD
U. S. Weibull 2006 U. S. Weibull 1980 U. S. Hubbert 2006 U. S. Hubbert 1980 U. S. Production