File talk:Hubbert peak oil plot.svg

Request

(From author's talk page)

Could you please add the missing legend under the blank right hand side of the curve "future discoveries (after 1956) 910 x 10⁹ bbls". I would recommend putting it partly under the curve rather than drawing an arrow to the curve, as it is the area under the curve that is being referred to, not the curve. Or just use red or orange for the legend and area under the curve. Also, looking at Image:Hubbert-fig-20.png it appears that the peak occurs exactly at year 2000, while your curve shows the peak slightly before. 199.125.109.113 03:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about the legend, but the peak position is correct. If you look carefully at Image:Hubbert-fig-20.png, you'll see that the scanned image is slightly rotated counter-clockwise, which affects the apparent peak position. Hankwang (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that artifact but did not realize the consequence. Adding the date for future discoveries is particularly important, because the data was presented more than 50 years ago now. 199.125.109.37 23:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What I would suggest, is coloring in the area under the curve at the right, perhaps in orange, and labeling it "future discoveries (after 1956) 910 x 10⁹ bbls". Also, please note, the peak is in the wrong place - see page 22 of http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf which states "which places the date of the peak at about the year 2000". The graph was rotated slightly but that didn't change the peak. See Image:Hubbert-fig-20.png. 199.125.109.81 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The original scanned plot was very low resolution; based on that plot I cannot really tell whether the peak was in 2000 or 1995. I have tweaked the data very slightly to have the peak in 2000. I also updated the 'future discoveries'. I am not watching Commons, so notify me at en:User Talk:Hankwang for other questions. Hankwang (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There Is No Single "Hubbert Curve", There Are Hubbert Curves (plural) and Resulting False Conclusions

This plot of the Hubbert Curve is simply one of many possible curves for the depletion of liquid hydrocarbons. The utility of this particular depiction is dubious without a complete explanation of assumptions and definitions. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, several variables would alter the timing and magnitude of the peak. Variance due to plausible ranges for these variables would significant increase the maximum peak production, alter the integral (the total production under the curve) and extend the timing of the peak by decades or even into the next century.

The first error with this depiction of the Hubbert Curve (and many others found on Wikipedia) is the failure to define "oil". Restricting the curve to conventional crude oil is a fallacy since crude oil itself has numerous close substitutes which are used today. This is a tautological fallacy. Simply recognizing this reality and plotting a Hubbert Curve for "extracted liquid hydrocarbons" would pick up current and future production of heavy oil, ultra heavy, tar sands bitumen, and natural gas plant liquids. A significant percentage of the gasoline sitting in the tank of a typical US car in 2009 is derived from non-crude liquid hydrocarbons. Beyond these liquid hydrocarbons are other hydrocarbons that also can substitute for crude oil. These begin with oil shale kerogen, and synthfuels derived from coal and natural gas liquefaction. A third set of additional supply is created when you allow for refinery blending (which occurs now) with non extracted liquid hydrocarbons. Currently this is primarily ethanol derived from sugar cane and corn. But a second technological wave occurs when cellulosic ethanol, algae and other bio hydrocarbons, liquefied methane ices, and completely synthetic hydrocarbons reach greater degrees of viability and production. A fourth substitution is solid hybrocarbons - coal - which is burnt to generate electric power which powers plug-in electric cars i.e. the 2011 Chevy Volt. Lastly, gaseous substitutes to liquid hydrocarbons are used today in meaningful quantities and could expand in the future - primarily CNG (Compressed Natural Gas). If you add CNG to all liquid hydrocarbons the available supply is significantly greater than that implied by this particular Hubbert Curve.

The second error with this curve is that it implies that supply will exhaust and cause production to diminish. This is a fallacy. As the marginal cost of production of liquid hydrocarbons rise due to depletion of low cost sources, price substitution to alt energy and change in demand will cause diminishment of production NOT SUPPLY! That is, if you corrected for error #1 and fixed the price of a barrel of crude oil at say $150 per barrel and allowed no substitutions to alt energy the peak of the Hubbert curve would extend out to the end of this century and possibly into the next. The supply and demand on liquid hydrocarbons is complex.

These "we're at peak now or just past it" Hubbert Curves have been proven repeatedly wrong for decades. Go Google Hubbert Curves generated in the 1980 or 1990s and they invariably depict peaks that didn't occur. The oil price shocks of 1979 and 2008 caused a significant decrease in global demand, no doubt temporary reductions in global oil production due to reduced demand will be falsely attributed to depletion. Keep in mind that due to substitutions and efficiency gains following the 1979 oil shock, US demand for crude oil did not recover to 1978 levels until 2004. 66.250.5.66 16:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

Idea for a hyperlink at the word "unported"

I was curious about the word "unported", which appears in a certain place (see "#Where the word "unported" appears", below). I eventually found this web page, which has (as item number "8." under "General License Information"), a hyperlink -- (labeled "What are the international (“unported”) Creative Commons licenses, and why does CC offer “ported” licenses?") -- [which points] to this (longer) URL, and that provided me with some interesting information about why (and how) the words "ported" and "unported" are sometimes used in connection with certain CC-BY and CC-BY-SA [etc.] licenses. This was helpful in satisfying my curiosity, about the meaning of "unported", in such contexts.

Then it occurred to me that it might be helpful (to other readers) if they could just click on the word "unported", and be taken directly to the (longer) URL mentioned above. I might not be the only one who is curious about how being "ported" or "unported" could be applicable to a CC license, and what being "ported" or "unported" means for a CC license.

Where the word "unported" appears

Within the "File:" page that corresponds to (goes with) this "Talk:" page, there is a box for the en:GFDL license, a second box for the en:CC-BY-SA_3.0 license, and a third box for the en:CC-BY_2.5 license. The word "unported" appears in the middle one of those 3 boxes. ("Only" there, iirc)

How to do it

I personally do not know how to do it -- that is, how to cause the word "unported" to become a hyperlink to the desired URL.

The word ["unported"] seems to be (it probably is) part of some template or other macro, so I do not know how to accomplish the goal, ...nor even where to begin, in order to learn how to do it (how to figure out what needs to be done, and how do it.)

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks, --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

a Wikipedia article that might be appropriate

After writing the above, it occurred to me that there might be a Wikipedia article, that would satisfy the reader's curiosity just as well as (or, even better than) the "(longer) URL" mentioned above.

Sure enough, not only is there an English Wikipedia article about en:Creative Commons licenses, but it contains a hyperlink to this other Wikipedia article, that might be even more appropriate: en:Creative Commons jurisdiction ports.

I regret not spotting that even sooner. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Extraction rather than production

@Hankwang: Oil is not produced, but extracted. Using the word "production" could be misleading. If you agree, would you mind changing it? I tried to do it myself but I'm having technical difficulties. Thanks! --Sophivorus (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)