OilFinder2 wrote: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.