File talk:Hubbert world 2004.png

This is now about 5 years out of date. While I am sure the worldwide economic downturn of recent years is of concern for any graph such as this, it would be nice to see an updated figure. Further, I think that this graph is stymied by the omission of OPEC, any new image purporting to represent "World" oil production should include Saudi Arabia, etc. Kjsharke (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now 6 years out of date. Is the "peak" reached yet on a newer graph, or the peak was caused by lower consumption/economic reasons? Patcat88 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a problem with the graphic. The label says "MMBbl/D" but the axis values are to 5 places left of the decimal. Common oil industry usage assigns 3 zeros to each of the ´M´ values in the label. This would make non-FSU production tens of billions of barrels of oil daily. Tens of millions is more likely. Crubins 11:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's because the prefix "M" can either stand for "mega" (106) or, like here, for the latin "mille" (10<3>). Raminagrobis

Also, the link for the graphic appears to be broken. Crubins 11:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Note the graphic lacks some countries who started only recently to produce oil : Chad, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea... Mauritania, who will soon start production, should be added too. This would however only sightly attenuate the decline.--Raminagrobis

This graphic is quite misleading, the title says "world" yet it does not include OPEC which accounts for over 50% of the total. The fact that non-OPEC non-FSU countries are in decline may be interesting, but a summary chart should have total world production. At least it should be made clear to the casual reader that this chart does not represent world situtation Bobcousins 12:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be quite interesting to see the chart contrasted with one that does include OPEC and the FSU. In fact, if we're going to have the "pile" model of charting, why not have just one image, with a highlighted line separating the three blocks? But I assume there's probably a second image in the publication where this came from.

I also get the impression that the distortion of the upper strata could be improved with some reordering; moving the US towards the top might help with that.

Is the data on which the chart is based readily available in a computer-readable format? Shouldn't take too long to cook something up then :-)

minor nitpick: the Neutral Zone was divided between OPEC members Iraq and Saudi Arabia (I'm deliberately not giving a date, see that article). I'm not even sure whether production in that area ever wasn't subject to OPEC quotas ... essentially, I think this is just a fluke.

RandomP 14:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

peaking at the same time
I don't disagree with the theory of peak oil, however is it really peak oil when all the countries peak at exactly the same time? each country has different levels of untapped oil. I don't understand how the oil productions of different countries could appear to be this well corelated. It seem more likely that there was some other force causing this peaking behavior. for instance, a cartel behavior among oil companies collectively agreeing to drive up the price of oil by cutting production and at the same time taking oil refineries offline to fed the 911/Iraq war oil spectulators into a frenzy to drive up the price...


 * It's a contrived graph. First, it (supposedly) shows actual production or contribution to the world market, NOT capacity, much less availability.  Second, because it's a cumulative graph, if the product of a few large sources goes down, the entire graph will trend down.  Third, was it a tactical maneuver to leave off OPEC and Russia?  It smells like a typical case of data manipulation to acheive the desired end result.  If you stop the chart just after the 1971 "Rest-USA" peak (73-74?), it would have also appeared as a worldwide peak, when clearly it was not.  The graph offers no explanation for WHY the levels might fall off.  Some suppliers could have political or technical difficulty maintaining production levels.  In the US, there are many areas where traditional pumping techniques will no longer yield oil and forcing more oil from those wells isn't worth the cost, yet.  The point is, "Peak Oil" is supposed to be about availability, not actual output, and this chart shows only output.  Nevermind the apocalypse predicted for post-2004.  --JJLatWiki (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Extrapolation
the fall off in oil is entirely extrapolated...see year 2004. everthing to the right is a guess...

oil represention
what percent of the world's natural oil reserves are represented by the countries in this graph?


 * In this graph: 15% Aprox.
 * OPEC and Rusia: 85% Aprox.
 * Saludos, Tayavek, from Argentina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.128.241 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

THIS GRAPH IS HIGHLY MISLEADING AND FLAWED. IT SHOULD BE REMOVED! It is not a graph of global production but only non-OPEC and non-former USSR countries. Even this definition is dubiously useful. The data in the graph is now dated and is erroneous. In 2007, the world produced 84.6 million bbl/d of crude - the greatest amount ever. 12.6 million bbl/d was produced in 2007 in former countries of the USSR (for what that matters). This was the greatest amount ever.

OPEC is a 13 member cartel composed of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Angola, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Indonesia. These nations produced 35.4 million bbl/d in 2007 or 41.8% of global crude oil production.

The statement is made that "This graph shows that oil production has already peaked in non-OPEC, non-former Soviet Union countries." While it is true that is what the graph shows, it is not at all clear that this will be factually true. Production of crude is price elastic in time frames beyond a few years. What is depleting is the production of oil at certain historic prices (say $60 per barrel). Stated another way, the world is likely peaked "cheap" oil production. But the these Hubbert graphs make no calculation for price and are therefore absurd.

OPEC produced 34.4 million bbl/d in 2004 (41.4% of global production), the year of the graph's last actuals (everthing to the right, 2005 and beyond, is speculation). Former SU states produced 11.3 million bbl/d in 2004.

Non-former Soviet Union and non-OPEC countries produced 37.3 million bbl/d of crude in 2004, the graph shows about 36 million. The Graph predicts about 32 million bbl/d in 2007 from non-OPEC, non-former Soviet Union nations. In 2007, these nations produced 36.6 million bbl/d, this slight decline is just about made up by increased production of US and Brazilian ethanol. The US is on track to produce in excess of 500,000 bbl/d of ethanol in 2008. Also, just looking at crude oil production ignores significant sources of liquid energy products. In 2007 for example, the U.S. produced 1.8 million bbl/d of natural gas liquids and added 1 million bbl/d of refining process gains.

Be careful too with the definitions of "crude" in any future model or analysis. Does the crude oil definition you're studying include Canadian bitumen or Mexican ultra heavy, for example? These hydrocarbon energy sources are often defined as alternative energy sources and not included with crude models. The world is developing and producing other hydrocarbon substitutes for crude any good science, economics, or policy development should consider these realities. At sustained prices above $100 per barrel the US, China and India will likely be liquifying significant amounts of coal, South African style, in the next decade. At some sustained price above that ($150-$200? / bbl), US shale kicks in with recoverable reserves in Colorado alone greater than current global crude reserves.

(All facts are from the EIA's superb website) 38.112.20.26 (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)glennscott9

What happened to the old (new) peak?
I noticed that someone changed the peak graph to some old one which does not show mexico. Why can't we be showing the old (new) graph?