Xenophobe wrote:The economic issues of the 70's were not created by the discovery profile 40 years earlier. Observe his Figure 12-2. All of the nonsense he used to lead up to HOW those little gold dots follow the red line is a complicated way of saying, "I knew there was a dip here which has nothing to do with the censored data I used to create a discovery profile so I have to make up something else KNOWING WHAT THE ANSWER IS AND THAT THE DISCOVERY PROFILE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT". Whatever he calls this fudge factor doesn't matter...the only thing which allows him to fit the line is knowing AFTER THE FACT that it happened. There is a reason Stuart wanted residuals. Web certainly isn't going to tell you why.
Like I said...let Excel do it, and skip his bad philosophical interludes.
Am I apparently the only person in the oil world that has figured out that production is the convolution of an extraction profile with a discovery stimulus?
Discovery plods along in the background (everyone wants to get rich and establish dominance) while the actual production levels is sensitive to geopolitics (everyone wants to play the other guy).
The USA peak oil situation coupled with the OPEC oil embargo did put a shock in production during the 70's and 80's. The Oil Shock Model accounts for the varying production levels by convolving the discovery against extraction levels.
Since you are so insistent on this point, show me another technique that is able to sensitively detect proportional extraction from the production data? This is about as easy in principle to understand as determining the impedance from an current versus voltage (IV) curve. Do you want residuals for that? Not necessarily, you want to have the best guess at the impedance. Unless you have the calibrated gold standard for what you are measuring against, you won't get residuals with a standard instrument.
No one has another technique for determining extraction levels, therefore you won't get residuals, as you have unobservable data to compare against. So it is worse than not having a calibration, a sample calibration doesn't even exist.
Extraction levels are proportional to reserve across the spectrum. An average always exists that essentially describes the R/P (reserve over production) ratio. So say someone gives you R/P numbers. Do you insist on demanding residuals knowing full well that there is no direct measurement of R/P available in the first place? Of course not. That's why conventional Hubbert Logistic analysis is misguided, in that Stuart and company plot residuals without realizing that the difference is somehow related to sensitive changes in the extraction level. So no one has figured this out because they haven't figured out how to do convolution. I take that back because Sam Foucher did a commendable job by introducing the Hybrid Shock Model, which reconciled the Oil Shock Model with the Hubbert Logistic model.
And of course this is all described in my book http://TheOilConunDrum.com.
So keep the criticisms coming and you can shout all you want.