THE Petrobras Thread (merged)

[OilFinder2]

Gotcha. I read the TOD article anyway, I'm not certain of its relevance. Rocmann appears very unhappy that someone can claim that 5.0% is the right answer rather than 5.1%.

Considering the topic they are discussing, the level of precision which is claimed does appear more than a little silly. Rocmann gets pretty perturbed over it for some reason

I got the impression he was joking around.

[OilFinder2]

In fact, now that I re-read it, he's obviously being sarcastic.

His first post was here. This is where he is joking around/being sarcastic but sounding like he was mad:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6206#comment-588817

Here it becomes obvious he was joking around:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6206#comment-588839

And here he explains his point more seriously:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6206#comment-588889

First, Gail said:

I don't see an issue with what Mr. Pimental said regarding the 5.0% versus 5.1% decline rate. What he says is, "Your estimate of 5% in the decline rate applied to declining production was almost right. The exact number is 5.1%."

In essence, she was saying, "Why did he bother to mention this? It's a trivial difference." Then Rockman agrees:

I get your point Gail. Without boring everyone with the details let me just say I can take the detailed production history of a single completion in one well and not justify the degree of accuracy he offers. Not even close. No one could. And I mean using every piece of detailed production history and using the most complex computer models I couldn't offer accuracy any closer then a few percent. No one could. And they are looking at general information of ten's of thousands of wells. Information that has not been analyzed for accuracy by any independent analyst.

I do appreciate the need to be diplomatic but when one party starts out from a completely indefensable position where do you go? Do you pretend to believe what can't be believed? Do you try to change the position of someone who allows no possibility of error...even the smallest? The best I can allow for this fellow that he felt obligated for political reason to make that statement. But if he feels forced to make such a statement how can one expect any meaningful conversation?

Just to lighten the tone I'll remind you of the old question: 2 + 2 = ?

Engineer: 4.0000
Reservoir geologist: something between 3 and 5
Lawyer/Gov't Spokesman: What do you want it to be?

Pimentel probably did spend a bit too much time in his response describing the 5.0 vs 5.1 difference, but I suppose he was just trying to be technically accurate and explain the source of the number.

[pstarr]

AP. His name is Rockman. 30 years a petroleum geologist.

The Petrobas response guy is a pr flack. They are backspinning under orders from Chavez. You know these communists---public relations types who would put ExxonMobile to shame

[TheAntiDoomer]

AP. His name is Rockman. 30 years a petroleum geologist.

The Petrobas response guy is a pr flack. They are backspinning under orders from Chavez. You know these communists---public relations types who would put ExxonMobile to shame

p I'm not sure why you care about his experience. Maddog has at least that and you are quick to dismiss him.

[shortonsense]

AP. His name is Rockman. 30 years a petroleum geologist.

The Petrobas response guy is a pr flack. They are backspinning under orders from Chavez. You know these communists---public relations types who would put ExxonMobile to shame

p I'm not sure why you care about his experience. Maddog has at least that and you are quick to dismiss him.

When a source says something you agree with, they are golden. When they don't, they are despicable. Its a wonderful way to continuously validate a belief system.

[AirlinePilot]

I knew who it was ,I just mispelled it here, my fault. I'm very familiar with Rockman and place a high regard in what he says. I do not agree that Rockman was "joking around" He is genuinely perturbed and rightly so. One of the worst things we have to deal with in search for facts with regards to any of this is roadblocks like what this Petrobras PR clown has thrown up.

Short,

Give me a break! Exactly what did Oily just do with this ridiculous "I TOLD YOU SO crap?

Give it a rest, it adds NOTHING to the discussion.

[shortonsense]

Short,

Give me a break! Exactly what did Oily just do with this ridiculous "I TOLD YOU SO crap?

Give it a rest, it adds NOTHING to the discussion.

Oh...and pretending to validate Pstarr's "when did you stop beating your wife" type questions DO?

If Rockmann was simply whining about the ridiculousness of certainty when someone thinks they are making a large distinction between a 5% and 5.1% decline, I think he is perfectly right, such precision in that debate is ridiculous. He didn't appear to be making any technical distinction beyond that.

[TheAntiDoomer]

AP. His name is Rockman. 30 years a petroleum geologist.

The Petrobas response guy is a pr flack. They are backspinning under orders from Chavez. You know these communists---public relations types who would put ExxonMobile to shame

p I'm not sure why you care about his experience. Maddog has at least that and you are quick to dismiss him.

When a source says something you agree with, they are golden. When they don't, they are despicable. Its a wonderful way to continuously validate a belief system.

exactly. I find it hilarious that folks accuse of2 of " pumping" oil with no proof that he has any connection to the oil biz. Then you have rockman an admitted petro geologist who directly benefits from advertising oil "scarcity". Yet noone ever questions his motives????

[OilFinder2]

I don't know why I'm doing this, because a blind man could see it, but:

World Oil Capacity to Peak in 2010 Says Petrobras CEO

Then:

Absolutely nowhere in that Petrobras PDF does [Petrobras CEO] Gabrielli state that 2010 will be the peak of production.

Then:

The post written by Anthony Eriksen (ace) right in its title makes an erroneous interpretation of the graph presented by Petrobras in December 2009. In no moment was the graph intended to provide an estimate of peak oil date . . . Once again, we do not believe it is possible to predict a peak oil date. In particular, we do not believe it will happen in 2010.

Then:

I told you so

Duh!

[AirlinePilot]

I got the impression he was joking around.

Rockman...

"I'm sorry but I've been doing this type of analysis for 34 years and anyone that seriously makes such a statement is delusional to point of needing to be committed or is a self-known bald face liar. I don’t like to jump on folks too hard. Even I, on rare occasions, have been wrong. Difference of opinions are fine. But such an arrogant statement deserves a harsh verbal slap IMHO."

Sorry but I would not call that joking around. He is somewhat sarcastic in a few of his other sentences but Im not sensing "joking around".

He's T-o'd at this party lacky period.

[OilFinder2]

How can anyone read this post of his and not figure out he was being sarcastic?

Good point WT. Granted we reservoir geologists can't be as accurate. But wildcatters like yourself are fully capable of being accurate 100.000000000000000000000000000% of the time. I can handle naive, stupid, stubborn, etc. But such arrogance is just too hard to swallow.

[AirlinePilot]

I find it hilarious that folks accuse of2 of " pumping" oil with no proof that he has any connection to the oil biz. Then you have rockman an admitted petro geologist who directly benefits from advertising oil "scarcity". Yet noone ever questions his motives????

If you've been reading TOD long enough you'd know that statement has about ZERO cred. I do believe Rockman was here for a while but he left for more reasonable discussion. He is one of the more balanced and honest industry guys I have read.

[AirlinePilot]

How can anyone read this post of his and not figure out he was being sarcastic?

I think if you actually read my post I admitted he was being sarcastic in several places.

Do you read others posts Oily?? Seriously?

[TheAntiDoomer]

I find it hilarious that folks accuse of2 of " pumping" oil with no proof that he has any connection to the oil biz. Then you have rockman an admitted petro geologist who directly benefits from advertising oil "scarcity". Yet noone ever questions his motives????

If you've been reading TOD long enough you'd know that statement has about ZERO cred. I do believe Rockman was here for a while but he left for more reasonable discussion. He is one of the more balanced and honest industry guys I have read.

Ap the point was more some here are quick to latch onto Rockman because you agree with him but trash maddog when he tells you about decades of cheap natural gas.

[OilFinder2]

How can anyone read this post of his and not figure out he was being sarcastic?

I think if you actually read my post I admitted he was being sarcastic in several places.

Do you read others posts Oily?? Seriously?

Yes I read the other posts.

Here is why he was obviously being sarcastic.

First, he says:

I'll admit right up front that I truly dumbfounded when it was stated that the decline rate was 5.1% and not 5.0%. I had to read it several times to make sure I read correctly. I'm sorry but I've been doing this type of analysis for 34 years and anyone that seriously makes such a statement is delusional to point of needing to be committed or is a self-known bald face liar. I don’t like to jump on folks too hard. Even I, on rare occasions, have been wrong. Difference of opinions are fine. But such an arrogant statement deserves a harsh verbal slap IMHO.

He said that in response to steverio's post, but he didn't actually respond to what steverino said, he was just kinda rambling off on another point.

Then later, in response to Gail, he says:

I get your point Gail. Without boring everyone with the details let me just say I can take the detailed production history of a single completion in one well and not justify the degree of accuracy he offers. Not even close. No one could. And I mean using every piece of detailed production history and using the most complex computer models I couldn't offer accuracy any closer then a few percent. No one could. And they are looking at general information of ten's of thousands of wells. Information that has not been analyzed for accuracy by any independent analyst.

So, if he knows no one could offer any more accuracy of more than a few percent, why would he accuse someone of being incompetent for not knowing the decline rate was 5.1% instead of 5.0%? Obviously he was mocking the Petrobras guy for even bringing up the 5.0 vs 5.1 thing in the first place.

[shortonsense]

So, if he knows no one could offer any more accuracy of more than a few percent, why would he accuse someone of being incompetent for not knowing the decline rate was 5.1% instead of 5.0%? Obviously he was mocking the Petrobras guy for even bringing up the 5.0 vs 5.1 thing in the first place.

I thought he was cheesed because of "false precision", something engineers are often accused of, which can be confused with "significant digits" in calculations.

His 100.0000% comment struck me as right up that sort of intellectual alley. When an answer is probabilistic, its deterministic version is wrong a vast majority of the time.

[pstarr]

AP. His name is Rockman. 30 years a petroleum geologist.

The Petrobas response guy is a pr flack. They are backspinning under orders from Chavez. You know these communists---public relations types who would put ExxonMobile to shame

p I'm not sure why you care about his experience. Maddog has at least that and you are quick to dismiss him.

MD202/20 could not stand the heat

[pstarr]

Short,

Give me a break! Exactly what did Oily just do with this ridiculous "I TOLD YOU SO crap?

Give it a rest, it adds NOTHING to the discussion.

Oh...and pretending to validate Pstarr's "when did you stop beating your wife" type questions DO?

If Rockmann was simply whining about the ridiculousness of certainty when someone thinks they are making a large distinction between a 5% and 5.1% decline, I think he is perfectly right, such precision in that debate is ridiculous. He didn't appear to be making any technical distinction beyond that.

He didn't need to, given the pedigree of the chart

[pstarr]

AP. His name is Rockman. 30 years a petroleum geologist.

The Petrobas response guy is a pr flack. They are backspinning under orders from Chavez. You know these communists---public relations types who would put ExxonMobile to shame

p I'm not sure why you care about his experience. Maddog has at least that and you are quick to dismiss him.

When a source says something you agree with, they are golden. When they don't, they are despicable. Its a wonderful way to continuously validate a belief system.

exactly. I find it hilarious that folks accuse of2 of " pumping" oil with no proof that he has any connection to the oil biz. Then you have rockman an admitted petro geologist who directly benefits from advertising oil "scarcity". Yet noone ever questions his motives????

What? The guy is geologist, not a PR flack hired by the Lulo commie government to spin an inadvertent admission of truth.

Are you a commie?

[pstarr]

I find it hilarious that folks accuse of2 of " pumping" oil with no proof that he has any connection to the oil biz. Then you have rockman an admitted petro geologist who directly benefits from advertising oil "scarcity". Yet noone ever questions his motives????

If you've been reading TOD long enough you'd know that statement has about ZERO cred. I do believe Rockman was here for a while but he left for more reasonable discussion. He is one of the more balanced and honest industry guys I have read.

Ap the point was more some here are quick to latch onto Rockman because you agree with him but trash maddog when he tells you about decades of cheap natural gas.

MD20/20 is not a geologist. He is an accountant.