OilFinder2 wrote:But actually that's OK with me - I'll be sure to bookmark this thread and visit it periodically in the future. This forum is so much fun!
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:Go ahead. The folks at EIA somehow thought it important to display data for conventional crude only.
OilFinder2 wrote:Here - I can find . . . one nation . . . which all by itself . . . will probably double your figure.
Click here
I dunno, but I've got a sneaking suspicion your model didn't include that! Or anything remotely close to that!
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:Xenophobe wrote:The peer review your work went through must have missed that little detail.
Peer review comments don't have to be heeded.
Web wrote:If they are preposterous, they can be dismissed.
Web wrote:So you apparently want to believe that the URR/OOIP will increase greatly from the historical average of 0.35 or so. What does that give, 2800/0.35 = 8000 billion, right?
Web wrote:My book is about the subject of entropy as much as anything else.
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:Is this the same outfit that was pushing out all the commercials to convince people to invest in the Iraqi dinar a few years ago?
http://buyandselliraqidinar.blogspot.com/2007/06/basrah-contains-huge-oil-wealth.html
http://www.investorsiraq.com/showthread.php?44079-Basrah-contains-huge-oil-wealth-%28Iraq-Directory%29
just curious
Petroleum geologists have delineated and mapped more than 526 prospects, drilling 131 prospects to discover 73 major fields. Some 239 undrilled prospects have a high degree of certainty. Thirty fields have been partially developed and 12 fields are actually onstream.
mos6507 wrote:Ludi wrote:"The economy" will be fine. Regular folks and especially poor folks will be screwed. But they should just get a better job and stop being poor.
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
OilFinder2 wrote:So as I said, if you insist on comparing your model to EIA numbers, you're doomed to be wrong. The only way you can be right is if you decide to include these unconventional deposits in your discovery model.
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:So I could make all these minor adjustments and the curves will still look pretty much the way I described them out to 2050.
Xenophobe wrote:So lets see the residuals on your dispersive model contemporaneous to when it predicted peak....2005 was it?
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:Xenophobe wrote:So lets see the residuals on your dispersive model contemporaneous to when it predicted peak....2005 was it?
Define exactly what you want to see. I am not here to play a game of 20 questions.
Who are Stuart and Oily?
Web wrote:Actually, if you see something you don't like, you can do the analysis yourself.
Web wrote:BTW, the standard checks of models that characterize disorder include techniques such as log-likelihood, relative entropy (aka Kullback–Leibler divergence), or AIC and BIC. Good luck and have fun!
Xenophobe wrote:Analysis? You hid some analysis in all the philosophy stuff? Do you have a REVIEW of this analysis we can look at? By like, someone who knows something about the topic you thought you were writing about?
Ruttledge used a pretty simple version on some of his cumulative forecasts on world oil production, go ask him how to do them if you aren't familiar with something so simple.
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:Look at it with your own eyes. The oil shock model has a tunable parameter for extraction rate. I can narrow down the residuals to nothing if I so desire. So the residuals would have to be done against an extraction rate over the years and I have not seen anyone that has documented an average extraction rate year after year. The reason I mentioned the other entropy measures is that those are used to compare various models against each other. I don't see any other models to compare mine against. Pickings are kind of sparse, Hubbert Linearization doesn't cut it. Which brings it back to Stuart and his infatuation with heuristics. I am on the forefront here; all the geologists and petroleum types have really dropped the ball over the years when it comes to an analysis. Rutledge is a Physics guy and I am an EE semiconductor guy. I guess that's what it takes to make some progress in this field.
Pops wrote:I see you've met our current resident one-trick-cornies, not as good with the original thought as JD once was but they're all we can muster these days I guess.
mididoctors wrote:By how much would the extraction rates of unconventional oil (sands perhaps shale oil etc) need to be increased by to seriously effect the "curve" in the next 30-50yrs?
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:The treasure trove of research known as http://arxiv.org is the best thing since sliced bread!
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:Which of the cornucopians on this message board is willing to prove that this will happen?
Xenophobe wrote:Pops wrote:I see you've met our current resident one-trick-cornies, not as good with the original thought as JD once was but they're all we can muster these days I guess.
How can he have "met" anyone when even the comments offering him encouragement are perfunctorily erased?
Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests