Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby khebab » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 13:04:35

I'm trying to build a little statistical model for the simulation of oil production in a virtual country from the bottom up. Of course this is a quite a complexe problem, but the objective is simply to gain more insight in the relationship between discoveries and projected oil production and try to understand the mechanisms/limitations behind the Hubbert analysis.

My assumptions are the following (the symbol "~" means "distributed according to the law"):

Each oil field is modeled according to a logistic curve:
Code: Select all
P(t)= kxURR/2(1 - tanh^2(k(t - t_half)))

with random parameters (URR, k) according to the following laws:
Code: Select all
URR ~ Exponential(10)
k ~ Uniform(1) + 0.05

The exponential law for the URR (mean = 10 Gb) results in less frequent big fields and a lot of small fields. For each field I assume a first year production rate equals to 10% of the peak production of the logistic curve:
Code: Select all
P(t0)= 0.1 x URR / (4 x k)

In order to preserve causality, I have to estimate the time between peak production time and t0.

The time of discovery is a mixture of a gaussian and a uniform distribution controlled by the parameter beta:
Code: Select all
t_discovery ~ beta x Gaussian(25,10) + (1 - beta) x Uniform(50)

I assume a systematic oil field developpment time of 5 years +/- 6 months:
Code: Select all
t_developpment ~ Gaussian(5, 0.5)


Some preliminary results for two values of beta (1.0 (just gaussian) and 0.5 (half gaussian and half uniform)):

Image
Figure 1
Image
Figure 2

Two observations:
- the first figure demonstrates that a sum of logistic curves give a monopeak curve which seems to be asymetrical (skewed to the left) and looks like a Gamma distribution.
- the second figure is similar to the UK production where discoveries led to two successive production peaks.

From this first simple test, I already bumped into a few critical questions:
1- is there a relation between the URR and k?
2- is there a relationship between early discoveries and the URR (big fields discovered and exploited first)
3- what is the relationship between starting production level (first year) and the maximum output (I assumed 10%)?
4- What is the observed oil field size distribution? (I assumed an exponential)

Of course, this a very crude statistical model where there are no economical constraints.

Any suggestions is welcomed!
Last edited by khebab on Thu 12 Jan 2006, 02:04:54, edited 2 times in total.
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby EnergySpin » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 16:49:08

Khebab,
It would be interesting to use this hierarchical modelling approach in a Bayesian setting to actually infer URR from existing data.
I would stick with independence between URR and k as a first approximation - and would use an MCMC or a Gibbs Sampler approach to "learn" the model from data.
IMHO the failure to use Bayesian methods is the prime reason why there is lots of wrong predictions in this game.
Out of curiosity ... did you run the Monte Carlo experiments in Excel?
I myself prefer BUGS for this kind of work (but I have to do lots of Monte Carlo for my research).
Freely available by UK's Medical Research Council
http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/welcome.shtml
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 17:44:52

EnergySpin
I agree with your comment regarding the need to look at this with a stochastic view. I've actually played around with simpler models than Khebab used here...generally just for one or two pools. My assumptions are more general (assume peak production after 1 year ramp up...peak at 10% of URR...held for 2 - 5 years depending on field size and then declined at 10% /annum) but are what we normally use as first approximations. Usually I put in lognormal distributions for reserves and other assumptions regarding production/depletion. I've been using Crystal Ball in Excel but also have @Risk on my laptop. Pup55 sent me his Saudi depletion profile in excel format quite awhile ago and I have been meaning to fiddle around with that in Crystal Ball...unfortunately there are more things I would like to do than I have time for. :cry:
To my mind this whole discussion around Peak Oil could benefit greatly from discussing both reserves and production/depletion and demand from a stochastic viewpoint.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby EnergySpin » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 18:24:26

rockdoc123 wrote:EnergySpin
I agree with your comment regarding the need to look at this with a stochastic view. I've actually played around with simpler models than Khebab used here...generally just for one or two pools. My assumptions are more general (assume peak production after 1 year ramp up...peak at 10% of URR...held for 2 - 5 years depending on field size and then declined at 10% /annum) but are what we normally use as first approximations. Usually I put in lognormal distributions for reserves and other assumptions regarding production/depletion. I've been using Crystal Ball in Excel but also have @Risk on my laptop. Pup55 sent me his Saudi depletion profile in excel format quite awhile ago and I have been meaning to fiddle around with that in Crystal Ball...unfortunately there are more things I would like to do than I have time for. :cry:
To my mind this whole discussion around Peak Oil could benefit greatly from discussing both reserves and production/depletion and demand from a stochastic viewpoint.

We all wished we had more time; PO is rather expensive hobby as far as time is concerned.
I did give Verhulst/logistic modelling a shot a while back in this forum and I was appaled. This is a nasty curve to fit data to; I'm not surprised that most predictions have been wrong. People should really consult a non-linear regression textbook before they embark on this exercise,. This is why CC has repeatdely failed with his predictions - I would be surprised if he (and others) have ever read the Bibles on NLR (both from the early 80s). There is simply no way to "fit" one's way out of this, since the problem is ill-posed .
This leaves us only with the Bayesian approach:
1) Clearly state what the assumptions are and specifiy the data to be used
One could use a logistic model or a simpler one to describe depletion.
2) Assign probabilities on the URR and depletion rate (called prior probabilities). Simply fixing the URR value is foolish; one needs to put a probability (or belief) that it lies in a certain range
3) Update the prior probabilities using the data and the Bayes theorem
4) Read out the results (will be in family of curves)
The kind of model I would use would take the form of a simple logistic (or Verhulst) curve for reservoir depletion, but would not assume iid (or exchangeability) for the individual data points: a first order Markov Process is more appropriate. Then I would fire the samplers and see what happens .....
The use of prior probabilites and a non-NLR numerical methodology will make this problem well posed. By following this approach one could do consistent reasoning both forward and backward in time.

In reality this is rapidly becoming the standard approach to conduct research in bio-medicine cause of the problems we had with other statistical approaches.
Too bad I will only have time to play with that in mid-November :roll:

To all the Neo-Malthusian Jay Hanson followers in this site, the text above is an example of inductive reasoning he abhored. But this is the only kind of reasoning that has solved hard problems in medicine, physics, astrophysics etc
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby khebab » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 20:32:30

EnergySpin wrote:It would be interesting to use this hierarchical modelling approach in a Bayesian setting to actually infer URR from existing data.

I was thinking about using a bootstapping technique (also called resampling) from existing discovery curves.
EnergySpin wrote:I would stick with independence between URR and k as a first approximation - and would use an MCMC or a Gibbs Sampler approach to "learn" the model from data.

hmm.. I was thinking about a maximum likelihood procedure (EM) in order to learn the prior parameters. I didn't know that you could "learn" using samplers, I thought prior parameters have to be constant and learn prior to the stochastic procedure. Have you some references on that?
EnergySpin wrote:Out of curiosity ... did you run the Monte Carlo experiments in Excel?
I myself prefer BUGS for this kind of work (but I have to do lots of Monte Carlo for my research).
Freely available by UK's Medical Research Council
http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/welcome.shtml

No, Excel sucks for this kind of calculation. I used Matlab which has a statistic toolbox. BUGS looks good, the scripting language looks simple, clear and concise. I may try.
rockdoc123 wrote:My assumptions are more general (assume peak production after 1 year ramp up...peak at 10% of URR...held for 2 - 5 years depending on field size and then declined at 10% /annum) but are what we normally use as first approximations. Usually I put in lognormal distributions for reserves and other assumptions regarding production/depletion.

Is the lognormal a good model that has been confirmed by data? My principle problem is how to "cut" the logistic curve which has an infinite support. Some say that when R/P<10, the field is abandonned, this criterion could limit the production curve post peak. To cut at the left, I used P>0.1xPmax which is completely arbitrary. I believe that Lynch actually made comments about the inifinite support of the bell curve functions.
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby EnergySpin » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 21:07:36

khebab wrote:I was thinking about using a bootstapping technique (also called resampling) from existing discovery curves.

Brings back PhD memories ... I had to resample a really fucked up distribution to prove it was worth the alternative. I have certain reservations about the Bootstrap (not the Bayesian bootstrap) in general.

khebab wrote: hmm.. I was thinking about a maximum likelihood procedure (EM) in order to learn the prior parameters. I didn't know that you could "learn" using samplers, I thought prior parameters have to be constant and learn prior to the stochastic procedure. Have you some references on that?

Well the EM iterates between the expectatiion and maximization step keeping the estimate constant in the E step and location a new (optimal) value in the M step, but I was not thinking about that. For one thing, EM is realistically applicable to cases where you you have sufficient statistics. If you do not have sufficient statistics then you end up perfoming numerical integrations in multi-dimensional spaces (hurts). Note that since there is noise in the production data (I mean we cannot even different sources to agree on how much oil is produced daily), you should really be doing Error In Variable Regression a class of ill posed problems with no sufficient statistics.
In Bayesian inference, one does not have to fix parameters ; you specify with a belief function that describes where you think URR lies and then use the data to update yuour beliefs about the unknowns. For simple problems, one can use the Gibbs Sampler (which is the stochastic extension of the EM), or when the problem space is fucked up a Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Essentially you are replacing the numerical integration involved in the EM algorithm by monte carlo integration on samples generated by the samplers.
No curse of dimensionality there, even though multivariate RNG can be a bitch (but you are sticking with univariate well behaved distributions so it does not apply to your case).

A small intro on the use of Samplers in inference applications is :
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/us ... week6b.pdf
PM me if you want books or articles in DJVU or PDF formats .. got plenty.
Or stick with this comp stat freebie :)
http://www.quantlet.com/mdstat/scripts/ ... node1.html

khebab wrote:Out of curiosity ... did you run the Monte Carlo experiments in Excel?
I myself prefer BUGS for this kind of work (but I have to do lots of Monte Carlo for my research).
Freely available by UK's Medical Research Council
http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/welcome.shtml

No, Excel sucks for this kind of calculation. I used Matlab which has a statistic toolbox. BUGS looks good, the scripting language looks simple, clear and concise. I may try.
[/quote]
I use a combo of BUGS (years ago)+MAthematica (cause it is easy to write a Metropolis Hastings sampler in that enviro and the graphics are AWESOME). You might also want to consider R http://www.r-project.org if you are interested in a freebie statistical computing environment (and a pretty good one - I'm thinking of retooling into R some time in the next year).
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby khebab » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 22:07:23

Here the average solutions from 25 runs:

Image
Figure 3

I used the ASPO discovery curve for regular oil:

Image
Figure 4

I used a bootstrapping technique (with 100 points) on the discovery curve to have a sampling of the URR per year. The resulting average URR is 1,889 Gb +/- 75 Gb.

Not bad for this simple model.
Last edited by khebab on Thu 06 Oct 2005, 21:27:38, edited 1 time in total.
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby EnergySpin » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 22:27:18

So have we already peaked?
The model seems to indicate that we peaked in 03 (but I might be misreading the image). The decline seems to slow (which is good)
The problem with the ASPO discovery curve is that it is probably way too conservative. Do you have any runs based on taskforce_unity's data about projects coming online?
It will take me so time to look into the parametric assumptions (i.e. exponential distribution for the URR), but from a first glance:
- a poisson would be a more appropriate parametric assumption for the URR
- truncated gaussians could be used for k
- a poison would also be appropriate for t discovery
- a bivariate poison for t_discovery, URR would be even more appropriate (a numerical statemnt of big oil fields are the first to found and large oil field discoveries decline in time)
PM me if you want the books ....
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby khebab » Tue 04 Oct 2005, 10:33:54

EnergySpin wrote:So have we already peaked?
The model seems to indicate that we peaked in 03 (but I might be misreading the image). The decline seems to slow (which is good)

I made another estimation (100 iterations) with a more detailed truncated logistic curve (see figures below):

Image
Figure 5
Image
Figure 6

The peak is in 2005 at 23.5 Gb/year but there is quite a large error bar (1 sigma) around the peak position. The decline seems to be around 0.890 mbpd/year between 2015 and 2060. I don't know how it compares to expected depletion rates.
EnergySpin wrote:The problem with the ASPO discovery curve is that it is probably way too conservative.

Agreed. but don't forget that this curve is only for regular oil (deepwater, tar sands, etc. are excluded). I don't know how I could add tar sands yet (not the same depletion rate). It's quite difficult to find reliable and complete data about discoveries.

EnergySpin wrote:Do you have any runs based on taskforce_unity's data about projects coming online?

No but it's a good idea.
EnergySpin wrote:It will take me so time to look into the parametric assumptions (i.e. exponential distribution for the URR), but from a first glance:
- a poisson would be a more appropriate parametric assumption for the URR
- truncated gaussians could be used for k
- a poison would also be appropriate for t discovery
- a bivariate poison for t_discovery, URR would be even more appropriate (a numerical statemnt of big oil fields are the first to found and large oil field discoveries decline in time)
PM me if you want the books ....

There are many variations possible, there is also a graph in Simmons's book about the distribution of oil field sizes in the world from which we could derive a realistic field size distribution. I will PM you for the books, thanks! thanks also for all the links and suggestions. I'm gonna check BUGS/R and see if I could use it instead of Matlab.
Last edited by khebab on Thu 06 Oct 2005, 21:28:17, edited 1 time in total.
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby khebab » Tue 04 Oct 2005, 12:01:26

Here a better view of the peak production values:

Image
Figure 7

The mean value is 2004.68 but the error distribution is fairly large, each concentric circle gives the gaussian error domain for [0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0] times the standard deviation. So if you take the 0.5 sigma boundary (equivalent to a 1 sigma confidence interval), it gives you a peak between 2002 and 2007.
Last edited by khebab on Thu 06 Oct 2005, 21:28:18, edited 1 time in total.
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby EnergySpin » Tue 04 Oct 2005, 12:26:31

I thought we were already producing more than 23.5 GB .
In any case, your observation about the width of the confidence interval merits additional commenting.
A) It tells us something about the numerical difficulties of curve estimation using versions of Verhulst/logistic equations.
The EM is bound to encounter the same difficulties around the peak as the NLR games we played back in May :roll:
B) I suggest using at least 1000 -10000 runs of the simulation before generating the graphs. I do not think that computational load is an issue here for limiting the # of runs, and it is extremely likely to result in a reduction of the error. A simple property of Monte Carlo technicalities.

To rockdoc or anyone else who knows the answer to this:
What is the meaning of the creaming curve? Does it portray the Cummulative to Date Volume of Discover (# Oil fields x Volume of each oil field) vs Exploration activity (number of test drills). Is it possible to find this kind of data on a per country basis?

Side note - This is from a presentation given by Laherrere in CERN Yesterday. It would be interesting if anyone attended the presentation, because from the PDF I found at HubbertPeak.com I could not make any sense of what he wanted to say.

-Probability
Probabilistic approach in oil reserve estimate is subjective as every field is different, contrary to a random
distribution.
The subjective probability involves guessing what is the minimum, most likely and maximum of the
parameters: area, pay, porosity, and saturation. Only post-mortem evaluation is the key of improvement.
But many do not want to display their past errors! Recognizing error is the best way of future success!
Probability reporting to the medias is often based on wishful thinking, as the NASA reporting a crash in 1
out of 100 000 before 1986 Challenger crash (25th flight), then at the enquiry Nobel price Feynman
estimated at 1 out of 100. But the 2003 Columbia crash at the 107th flight shows that he was maybe too
optimistic.
Higgs boson was claimed in 2000 to have been discovered with a probability of only 2, 3, 4, 6 and 90
(varying with authors on the web) out of 1000 to be wrong and it is hard for me to see how the “about 3
σ” was estimated with such a narrow confidence level, compared of the uncertainty of this disputed
discovery! I will be pleased to learn more!


It does show an extremely interesting feature - most of the people in the forecasting business have a limited understanding of Statistical Inference (at least Lah. acknowledges that). By the way the Higgs Boson "paradox" is not a paradox at all. D'Agostini's Bayesian analysis of the Higgs boson measurements is a prime example of the gains of applying this framework in situations of uncertainty. Well po.com had enough Bayesian ranting for today ... we have work to do
Last edited by EnergySpin on Tue 04 Oct 2005, 13:38:40, edited 1 time in total.
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby khebab » Tue 04 Oct 2005, 13:15:03

EnergySpin wrote:B) I suggest using at least 1000 -10000 runs of the simulation before generating the graphs. I do not think that computational load is an issue here for limiting the # of runs, and it is extremely likely to result in a reduction of the error. A simple property of Monte Carlo technicalities.

I can compute more runs but I still have many technical issues to solve. The bootstrapping technique seems to work but i'm not sure it's done properly and the results is dependent on the size of the resampled set (I used 100 here). In particular, discovery curves are usually volume discovery curves which means that they don't give the temporal distribution of discovery events (number of new fields per year). I need to find a way to separate discovery frequency and field size distribution.
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby pup55 » Tue 04 Oct 2005, 13:55:03

Good work on this, Khebab....

discovery curves are usually volume discovery curves which means that they don't give the temporal distribution of discovery events (number of new fields per year).


I agree with this. Maybe find a way to model the discovery curve, using one of the distribution functions for field size and probability of success. From that, a distribution of possible ULL's to input into the front of your model to give a distribution of possible peak dates.
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby EnergySpin » Tue 04 Oct 2005, 14:01:01

pup55 wrote:Good work on this, Khebab....

discovery curves are usually volume discovery curves which means that they don't give the temporal distribution of discovery events (number of new fields per year).


I agree with this. Maybe find a way to model the discovery curve, using one of the distribution functions for field size and probability of success. From that, a distribution of possible ULL's to input into the front of your model to give a distribution of possible peak dates.

The easiest way would be to use a bivariate Poisson distro.
Khebab opened a can of worms .... it will be interesting as hell :roll:
Maybe it is a good idea for all of us to review our statistics and do it in the next 6 weeks. I have a digital version of Carlin's book on Bayesian data analysis for anyone who wants it (by PM only). BUGS and R is the perfect software for all of that.
Maybe it is time to turn this into a real community project.
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby khebab » Tue 04 Oct 2005, 14:16:19

pup55 wrote:I agree with this. Maybe find a way to model the discovery curve, using one of the distribution functions for field size and probability of success. From that, a distribution of possible ULL's to input into the front of your model to give a distribution of possible peak dates.

It's exactly what I'm planning to do but I think the problem is difficult. Roughly, the probability of discovering a particular volume v of oil for a particular year is the following:
Code: Select all
P(volume discovery=v|year)= sum_{nxf=v}[P(new discovery=n|year)xP(field size=f)]

but I suspect that P(field size=f) is dependent on a particular year value because giant fields have been probably discovered first!
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby khebab » Tue 04 Oct 2005, 14:24:37

EnergySpin wrote:Maybe it is time to turn this into a real community project.

It's a very good idea!! :) Maybe I could start an Open Source project on sourceforge.net an put all the codes and dataset online!

any idea for a name? Open Peak Oil Project?
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby khebab » Tue 04 Oct 2005, 14:38:04

Any language preference! R looks good to me
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby SilentE » Tue 04 Oct 2005, 16:42:37

Khebab wrote:There are many variations possible, there is also a graph in Simmons's book about the distribution of oil field sizes in the world from which we could derive a realistic field size distribution.


I've seen a couple of mentions that field size has a Zipf distribution. FWIW...
<i>A little glob becomes a globe instantly
If you just add silent e.</i>
-- Tom Lehrer
User avatar
SilentE
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue 23 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 04 Oct 2005, 17:18:39

I've seen a couple of mentions that field size has a Zipf distribution. FWIW...


I think it is pretty well agreed amoungst the folks who make a living at this (Pete Rose and Robert Megill come to mind) that field size distributions are fairly well described by a lognormal distribution. The thought being that anything that is a net result of multiplication of a number of random variables will result in an approximate lognormal distribution. Given all the other uncertainties probably not a bad approach.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: A Statistical Model for the Simulation of Oil Production

Unread postby EnviroEngr » Tue 04 Oct 2005, 20:25:12

Let me know if tables, graphs, source-code spreads, etc. need formatted display here. There might be a couple options in phpBB that allow things we haven't tried before.
-------------------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
-------------------------------------------
(---------< Temet Nosce >---------)
__________________________
User avatar
EnviroEngr
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richland Center, Wisconsin

Next

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron