Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby mustang19 » Sat 13 Feb 2021, 23:24:21

AdamB wrote:
mustang19 wrote:
AdamB wrote:
mustang19 wrote:But that 3 years is laughably insignificant compared to the coming crash.


Says he who now has to change the topic....lest the laughter again reach unbearable volume....


You see how retail sales and industrial production are heading in opposite directions- that's eroi falling.


So if eroi falls by X units, what is the answer to (1/0) - X ?

Mr. Computer Programmer..... :lol:


As I showed net energy is falling 1-3% monthly if production is stable due to water cut as wells age.
mustang19
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 14 Feb 2021, 12:08:56

mustang19 wrote:
AdamB wrote:
mustang19 wrote:You see how retail sales and industrial production are heading in opposite directions- that's eroi falling.


So if eroi falls by X units, what is the answer to (1/0) - X ?

Mr. Computer Programmer..... :lol:


As I showed net energy is falling 1-3% monthly if production is stable due to water cut as wells age.


Explain the math Short. What is the answer, as you've claimed in your eroi equation and this most recent statement. What is the answer to (1/0) - X?

Plug in any X you want, 1%, 3%, no problem. What is the answer? What's the matter? You can't even use Excel to figure this one out? We already know you can't read code, but surely even an engineer that can't engineer can figure out their own basic equation?
Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.

StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6209
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby mustang19 » Mon 15 Feb 2021, 01:44:56

Economy is collapsing fast. Unemployment is 20-30% in reality.
mustang19
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby mustang19 » Mon 15 Feb 2021, 06:39:19

Wti is $60 and guess what... production is down.
mustang19
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 15 Feb 2021, 10:35:39

mustang19 wrote:Economy is collapsing fast. Unemployment is 20-30% in reality.


Good thing that has nothing to do with the Hubbert curve not predicting oil production. Why don't you and the other end of the worlders get together and just post your ideas in your own thread? The folks not talking about a stock market crash in the stock market crash thread would seem to be just your type.
Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.

StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6209
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 15 Feb 2021, 10:37:50

mustang19 wrote:Wti is $60 and guess what... production is down.


Are you aware of how lagging indicators work?
Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.

StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6209
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Mon 15 Feb 2021, 14:09:35

AdamB wrote:
dcoyne78 wrote:
AdamB wrote:Swing a dead cat in one of their industry meetings, and you will hit many economists. But the geologists, engineers and one notable mathematician who built the reserve and resource development routines aren't economists.


Prices went below zero for a day due to unusual circumstances.


They did. And they are only unusual now, and incomprehensible before they happened, because of frequency of occurrence. You understand the magnitude of future uncertainty as well as I do, but aren't willing to use that understanding to allow it into your modeling ideas. Remember that graphic I sent you previously? Increasing uncertainty to the left, where there isn't the kind of data you seem to prefer. But if an answer is required, within that uncertainty is where the work gets done...depending on the level of development of a particular formation.

And thusly we arrive at Question #2. Again. Any long term answer must include the things that aren't providing the high levels of data you require to run your system. We already know missing this component is why previous peak oil claims have been a crock, other than sheer luck in a thoroughly explored, "no surprises left" field, province, basin or petroleum system.

dcoyne78 wrote:Economists run the show at the EIA and likely overrule the estimates of the scientists. Of the two organizations, the USGS estimates are better for tight oil, any estimate by the EIA that doesn't match up with USGS research doesn't pass the smell test.


If you ever happen to be in Denver for a conference or meeting and are looking for a free lunch, let me know. Perhaps I can improve your understanding of what does, or doesn't, pass a smell test.


There is no future data, only assumptions.

Let's focus on the cumulative output of their tight oil estimate for the low oil resource case (assuming linear decline after 2050 to zero by 2055) roughly matching a scenario with lower oil prices and using USGS mean TRR estimates, I guess you contend that the USGS mean estimates are too low, I disagree, I think the current EIA resource estimates are too high, with the exception of their low resource estimate which seems to roughly match the USGS mean estimate.
dcoyne78
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 15 Feb 2021, 14:42:17

AdamB wrote:
mustang19 wrote:Economy is collapsing fast. Unemployment is 20-30% in reality.


Good thing that has nothing to do with the Hubbert curve not predicting oil production. Why don't you and the other end of the worlders get together and just post your ideas in your own thread? The folks not talking about a stock market crash in the stock market crash thread would seem to be just your type.

Clearly he can't read charts. Of if he can, just lies about them. And of course, AS USUAL, he makes empty claims with no credible citations.

Of course, when claiming utter nonsense, there ARE no credible citations to reference, so there's that. :roll:

Meanwhile in the real world:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta ... yment-rate

There was a very nasty unemployment spike in 2020 due to Covid. And clearly, that's healing as a trend. And clearly, overall, as Covid gets better, that can be expected to move toward normalcy.

And re GDP, which a 25% unemployment rate would imply is awful, here's a summary:

https://www.bea.gov/news/glance

While the US GDP took a hammering in 2Q 2020, it snapped right back with a 33.4% increase in 3Q, and continued up with a 4% increase in 4Q.

And clearly, real world economists are expecting the Covid-19 recovery in 2021 to yield an expanding economy:

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO ... ook-update

https://www.conference-board.org/research/us-forecast

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56965

Overall very decent global economic growth in 2021. US GDP growth forecast of over 4% for 2021. Ongoing slow but fairly steady US economic growth forecast for the next decade by the widely respected (and they're earned it) CBOE.

Not exactly the picture of epic economic doom the fact free constantly wrong clown set hopes for. Likely similar overall to the recovery from the Great Recession mess, I'd expect. :idea:
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9225
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 15 Feb 2021, 16:07:12

dcoyne78 wrote:Let's focus on the cumulative output of their tight oil estimate for the low oil resource case (assuming linear decline after 2050 to zero by 2055) roughly matching a scenario with lower oil prices and using USGS mean TRR estimates, I guess you contend that the USGS mean estimates are too low, I disagree, I think the current EIA resource estimates are too high, with the exception of their low resource estimate which seems to roughly match the USGS mean estimate.


There are no facts in the future. I contend that the USGS and EIA have fundamental differences in how and exactly what they are quantifying. It is possible that both are as likely to be right as the other...within the assumptions of what they claim to be assessing. And change the assumptions of what your TRR is, to better account for solving Question #2 (like some DOE researchers do), and it might have just as much a chance of being the right answer, rather than the other 2. "Right" meaning within the context of answering Question #2, and not just shrugging off a more difficult task, and continuing to do the same thing, hoping that 10 minutes after the last well is plugged, you'll finally get it right.
Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.

StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6209
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby mustang19 » Mon 15 Feb 2021, 18:10:33

AdamB wrote:
mustang19 wrote:Wti is $60 and guess what... production is down.


Are you aware of how lagging indicators work?


Is it lagging? The production and price correlation is pretty much contemporaneous.
mustang19
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 15 Feb 2021, 18:58:27

mustang19 wrote:
AdamB wrote:
mustang19 wrote:Wti is $60 and guess what... production is down.


Are you aware of how lagging indicators work?


Is it lagging?


I'll take that question/answer as proof you have no understanding of how to even do the research to determine if it lags, or by how much, or why.
Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.

StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6209
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby mustang19 » Tue 16 Feb 2021, 02:23:31

I'm surprised this entire board doenst have a single geologist.
mustang19
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby mustang19 » Tue 16 Feb 2021, 04:38:16

It would be interesting if dcoyne would be so bold as to predict short term oil production from prices. Because then we see how useless prices are.
mustang19
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 16 Feb 2021, 10:42:28

mustang19 wrote:I'm surprised this entire board doenst have a single geologist.


It has several. And some of us who even play one on TV on occasion. But those other ones, they aren't interested in your "how poorly can I troll anyone who doesn't want to be" schtick. Like I've said previously, if you were willing to learn something, you would be a better troll. As it is, you are nothing but a milquetoast version of Armie.
Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.

StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6209
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 16 Feb 2021, 10:44:41

mustang19 wrote:It would be interesting if dcoyne would be so bold as to predict short term oil production from prices. Because then we see how useless prices are.


Prove yourself how useless they are. Oh wait! You already tried that, and determined that the price of oil should be $0/bbl right now, and the world ended! Oopsy....

Image
Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.

StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6209
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby mustang19 » Tue 16 Feb 2021, 18:03:54

AdamB wrote:
mustang19 wrote:It would be interesting if dcoyne would be so bold as to predict short term oil production from prices. Because then we see how useless prices are.


Prove yourself how useless they are. Oh wait! You already tried that, and determined that the price of oil should be $0/bbl right now, and the world ended! Oopsy....

Image


There is no need if everyone agrees
mustang19
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 16 Feb 2021, 21:45:14

mustang19 wrote:
AdamB wrote:
mustang19 wrote:It would be interesting if dcoyne would be so bold as to predict short term oil production from prices. Because then we see how useless prices are.


Prove yourself how useless they are. Oh wait! You already tried that, and determined that the price of oil should be $0/bbl right now, and the world ended! Oopsy....


There is no need if everyone agrees

Are you TOTALLY retarded? When the market price of WTI is $60 and rising as a trend, how is it that "everyone" agrees that WTI is worthless? (Not even getting into the bogus doomer theories of yours re economic doom that are ALWAYS wrong.)

And as usual, no credible links, or links at all, to prove your point. :roll: Wow. I'm sure "everyone" is totally convinced you are right. :razz:

Posting again and again like you're a 5 year old who isn't bright enough to attend kindergarten isn't exactly a resume for crediblity? Do you have enough functioning neurons to realise that?
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9225
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby mustang19 » Wed 17 Feb 2021, 08:09:27

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
mustang19 wrote:
AdamB wrote:
mustang19 wrote:It would be interesting if dcoyne would be so bold as to predict short term oil production from prices. Because then we see how useless prices are.


Prove yourself how useless they are. Oh wait! You already tried that, and determined that the price of oil should be $0/bbl right now, and the world ended! Oopsy....


There is no need if everyone agrees

Are you TOTALLY retarded? When the market price of WTI is $60 and rising as a trend, how is it that "everyone" agrees that WTI is worthless? (Not even getting into the bogus doomer theories of yours re economic doom that are ALWAYS wrong.)

And as usual, no credible links, or links at all, to prove your point. :roll: Wow. I'm sure "everyone" is totally convinced you are right. :razz:

Posting again and again like you're a 5 year old who isn't bright enough to attend kindergarten isn't exactly a resume for crediblity? Do you have enough functioning neurons to realise that?

Really, just make a falsifiable statement about how if price is X next week production will be Y.
mustang19
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 17 Feb 2021, 09:53:53

mustang19 wrote:
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Posting again and again like you're a 5 year old who isn't bright enough to attend kindergarten isn't exactly a resume for crediblity? Do you have enough functioning neurons to realise that?

Really, just make a falsifiable statement about how if price is X next week production will be Y.


More like temperature Z next week, when matched to eroi=1/0 graphed as X, versus Y number of Cheerios sold in Texas. Geez Short, it is just so obvious. You've done it before, how about being more clever this time, like these guys?
Image
Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.

StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6209
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve! Pt. 3

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Wed 17 Feb 2021, 17:30:38

AdamB wrote:
dcoyne78 wrote:Let's focus on the cumulative output of their tight oil estimate for the low oil resource case (assuming linear decline after 2050 to zero by 2055) roughly matching a scenario with lower oil prices and using USGS mean TRR estimates, I guess you contend that the USGS mean estimates are too low, I disagree, I think the current EIA resource estimates are too high, with the exception of their low resource estimate which seems to roughly match the USGS mean estimate.


There are no facts in the future. I contend that the USGS and EIA have fundamental differences in how and exactly what they are quantifying. It is possible that both are as likely to be right as the other...within the assumptions of what they claim to be assessing. And change the assumptions of what your TRR is, to better account for solving Question #2 (like some DOE researchers do), and it might have just as much a chance of being the right answer, rather than the other 2. "Right" meaning within the context of answering Question #2, and not just shrugging off a more difficult task, and continuing to do the same thing, hoping that 10 minutes after the last well is plugged, you'll finally get it right.


Yes obviously there are no future facts. I did not refer to any future facts however.

I am comparing a historical estimate given in the AEO 2021, that is a part of history, with historical assessments of the USGS.

AEO 2021 reference case has Bakken output from 2000 to 2050 at 22 Gb, USGS F5 estimate for Bakken/Three Forks TRR is about 15 Gb. Those are facts. Estimates can be incorrect, my guess is that the USGS F5 estimate is likely to be an upper bound for Bakken/Three Forks URR. Have you seen peer reviewed estimates for Bakken/Three Forks with TRR of at least 22 Gb (note that the AEO has Bakken output at 1.6 Mb/d in 2050 which implies a likely 3 Gb of output (at minimum) after 2050, so the AEO 2021 reference case implies a TRR of at least 25 Gb.

Does that seem reasonable? That is 10 Gb more than the USGS F5 estimate, I don't buy it.

Can you remind of us of question one and question two and how the questions are answered using publicly available data?

Note that I do not have all the answers, but it is not clear that you do either.

For all US tight oil, the USGS has Bakken/Three Forks at 25 Gb, Eagle Ford/Austin Chalk at 20 Gb, Permian at 62 Gb (the only reasonable estimate based on USGS mean TRR estimates), and the rest of US tight oil (where we have no recent USGS continuous resource estimates) at 33 Gb for their reference case. It is not clear where the EIA gets their resource estimates, but besides the Permian basin they are not credible in my opinion.

It seems that DOE researchers adjust resource estimates so that supply matches demand at the price scenarios they have devised. That seems an exercise in wishful thinking. :)

I will stick with USGS estimates, I doubt they will come up with mean estimates for other tight oil plays (besides Bakken/Three Forks, Eagle Ford/Austin Chalk and Permian basin) of 33 Gb. My estimate is about 16 Gb for the mean TRR of those other tight oil plays, with ERR of 13.8 Gb.
dcoyne78
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests