Don’t worry, just a little bump - $70 is just around the corner. Short traders just keep making those margin calls, mortgage the house if you have to. Fortunes await you! PO is for pansies and doomers. At $70 short some more ..... it is going back to $22 .... the world is awash with oil ........ reality has nothing to do with it, its all in those charts!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:27 am Post subject: Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling
Quote:
So when can we expect this done and posted here
I am still thinking about it, but one of my old models should be fairly adaptable to the project.
Quote:
Reserves are not static, they have never been, they aren't today, and they won't be in the future. So simply using an equation to deplete a static number ends up having NOTHING to do with what will be producable in the future.
"reserves" would have to be variable, with growth rate being a function of some type: the gap between supply and demand, for example, if any. "reserves history" from the BP review might be consulted for a way to think about this.
A question for you: I agree that reserves are not "static", but are reserves "finite"?
Joined: May 02, 2005 Posts: 3266 Location: One more question...
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject: Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling
ElijahJones wrote:
Sorry..........some folks prepare.
You decribe a very bleak and dark future through stating simple facts. Time for me to get depressed again........you make it difficult for me to maintain my optimistic stance. _________________ "Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
Robert A. Heinlein
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject: Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
pup55 wrote:
Everything over and above that might be "swing capacity" subject to being shut off at a given point, and this can also be modeled: sine wave, random peaks and troughs, spikes of magnitude X , steady state, etc. until the reserves run out.
Thinking of the problem as simply a reduction in reserves walks right into the typical logic trap which blows these types of models up right out of the box. Reserves are not static, they have never been, they aren't today, and they won't be in the future. So simply using an equation to deplete a static number ends up having NOTHING to do with what will be producable in the future.
Unless you calibrate the effect.
So, if you calibrate the way that reserves build up historically you have a shot at a good prediction. The way that reserves grow has similarities to the parabolic growth law of oxides (actually a misnamed square root growth law). Andrew Grove, CEO of Intel, actually did pioneered this work for his PhD thesis back in the 60's. The basic idea is that the volume of the oxide shoots up rapidly and then starts to slow down, essentially proportional to the square root of time. We never would have had precise control of silicon oxide thickness and therefore of the large-scale integration of microprocessors if fabrication engineers did not calibrate the rate of this growth. This whole conversation would have taken place by the post.
It's funny that no one in the petroleum industry wants to calibrate this analagous growth factor, and therefore predict with more certainty how much we will have in store for the future.
Joined: Nov 13, 2005 Posts: 11 Location: The Ozarks
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject: Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling
Given the chaotic production curves of both individual fields and entire countries, it's no wonder few people place much confidence in math curves to predict our future oil situation. But if you consider that the things that twist production curves away from smooth math curves are economic/political forces and are somewhat quantifiable, a math curve superimposed on a production history can have predictive value.
Last edited by netfind on Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:55 am; edited 4 times in total
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:01 pm Post subject: Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling
netfind wrote:
Given the chaotic production curves of both individual fields and entire countries, it's no wonder few people place much confidence in math curves to predict our future oil situation. But if you consider that the things that twist production curves away from smooth math curves are economic/political forces and are somewhat quantifiable, a math curve superimposed on a production history can have predictive value.
Funny you should mention that, because that is what the Oil Shock model accomplishes. It applies a series of transfer function to a discovery curve that is then perturbed by geopolitical "shocks" that follow the real-world transients occurring in the observed oil production curves. What's surprising is that the tweaks needed to follow the production curve often turn out to be relatively small fractional changes in the extraction rate.
Joined: Nov 13, 2005 Posts: 11 Location: The Ozarks
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:47 pm Post subject: Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling
"Transfer function to a discover curve" sounds a little like what I've done with some curves. I'm trying to post these charts for Russia but I'm like so all HTML illiterate it's like really really pathetic. What line of HTML do you use to add an image to a post anyway ? HELP ! Anybody.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:03 pm Post subject: Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
It's funny that no one in the petroleum industry wants to calibrate this analagous growth factor, and therefore predict with more certainty how much we will have in store for the future.
Hubbert, R&A, Verma and Ulmishek, Klett, all of these people having taken cracks at calibrating the effect in various environments, under various reporting rules, during various time frames.
What part of their work do you not consider "calibration"?
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject: Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
It's funny that no one in the petroleum industry wants to calibrate this analagous growth factor, and therefore predict with more certainty how much we will have in store for the future.
Hubbert, R&A, Verma and Ulmishek, Klett, all of these people having taken cracks at calibrating the effect in various environments, under various reporting rules, during various time frames.
What part of their work do you not consider "calibration"?
Umm, like why isn't it automatically done for all predictions?
Oh, I forgot, I guess it has something to do with SEC regulations prohibiting "speculative" estimates.
Once again I have to laugh at the imbeciles running things.
If these guys were in charge at Intel instead of Andy Grove, we would still be soldering discretes on circuit boards.
No wonder we laughed at all the rockheads who flunked out of engineering school and transferred over to geology.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:31 pm Post subject: Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling
netfind wrote:
"Transfer function to a discover curve" sounds a little like what I've done with some curves. I'm trying to post these charts for Russia but I'm like so all HTML illiterate it's like really really pathetic. What line of HTML do you use to add an image to a post anyway ? HELP ! Anybody.
On this message board, you click on the little icon that shows a tiny mountain range. It looks like this:
That presupposes you have a GIF or JPEG someplace on a server already.
If you don't, you will have to upload the GIF image (or JPG) as well. If you don't have a server readily available, you can use flickr.com or the one I prefer, ImageShack, at this site:
http://img113.echo.cx/
Upload your image and then copy&paste the URL into the image prompt above ^
I look forward to anything you can add to the discussion.
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:16 am Post subject: Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
It's funny that no one in the petroleum industry wants to calibrate this analagous growth factor, and therefore predict with more certainty how much we will have in store for the future.
Hubbert, R&A, Verma and Ulmishek, Klett, all of these people having taken cracks at calibrating the effect in various environments, under various reporting rules, during various time frames.
What part of their work do you not consider "calibration"?
Umm, like why isn't it automatically done for all predictions?
Oh, I forgot, I guess it has something to do with SEC regulations prohibiting "speculative" estimates.
So now you are back to pretending that the SEC reporting regulations have anything to do with reserve growth in Russia? As for things being done for all predictions....things are done...they are called reserves, they are defined by the SPE and they are calculated by reasonable and semi-consistent rules. Reserves ARE predictions...but you already know that, and want to blame the SEC for two sets of predictions being different over a span of years? Must be nice to work in an industry where you can't inprove on your performance given a couple years more practice and better technology.....how do those slide rules work for performing computational analysis nowadays?
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
Once again I have to laugh at the imbeciles running things.
If these guys were in charge at Intel instead of Andy Grove, we would still be soldering discretes on circuit boards.
No wonder we laughed at all the rockheads who flunked out of engineering school and transferred over to geology.
The engineers I went to school with didn't flunk out to geology, they became math teachers. Attanasai isn't a geologist, he's an economist. Verma is a petroleum engineer. And both of them know that the SEC doesn't have anything to do with reserve growth in Russia, a fact which apparently escapes people with an agenda to disprove the idea in the first place...and I'm guessing neither could care less about Intel or Groves because the guy probably couldn't find, drill or produce oil without a map pointing him to Ghawar and a petroleum engineer to hold his hand so he doesn't fall down a well and hurt hisself.
Volga-Ural and West Siberia provinces show most of their reserve growth in the first 5-7 years after discovery and little or no growth thereafter. It is difficult to compare the growth in Russian fields with those of the U.S. fields where growth continues even after 90 years, because in Russia oil fields are first evaluated over a 5-7 year period before being produced whereas in the U.S. both the evaluation and production of fields start shortly after their discovery.
Read again, Verma says they "show most of their reserve growth in the first 5-7 years after discovery and little or no growth thereafter." If the guy didn't mean to say this, well, he shouldn't have said it. He makes it look like Russia does very nicely with their estimation techniques.
And don't give me any of that baloney about other EOR methods not being included in these estimates unless you can say what fraction this includes.
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:01 am Post subject: Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling
Quote:
Read again, Verma says they "show most of their reserve growth in the first 5-7 years after discovery and little or no growth thereafter." If the guy didn't mean to say this, well, he shouldn't have said it. He makes it look like Russia does very nicely with their estimation techniques.
Comparing US and Russian exploration is an apples and oranges argument. In Russia the traditional exploration technique was to drill an exploration well, if it was a discovery the field was delineated by further drilling prior to bringing the field on production, often they ended up with wells spaced at 100 acres prior to bringing the field onstream. As a consequence it is not surprising they have a better idea of ultimate reserves early on. In the US and many other places fields are brought on production as soon as they believe an economic reserve limit has been met....sometimes this can be with very few wells into the field. This type of development makes a lot more sense from the standpoint of economics....taking advantage of the time value of money.
The Russians simply have more information.....which is what reserves growth is all about.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
