“The decline has very little to do with geology and much to do with the oil price.” Your are obviously “challenged” in respect to your reading and comprehension skills, or else just have it in for Dennis for some reason of your own. “Since when is a resource that is not economical to extract not a geological issue?” Suppose you outline your reasons for thinking you know so much more than Dennis? This ” wild pie in the sky” is in your head, not in Dennis’s. Why is it that you get to make up wild, pie in the sky scenarios that logic and economics virtually guarantee has zero chance of occurring and everyone accepts it as if it were a legitimate view point? So, basically, I believe ND Bakken is producing every barrel it can, from a geology point of view – despite the low prices. Would there have been a sudden policy change (due to lower prices) there would occur a mismatch between the first derivative of the model and the change in the data. The changes in the data do follow the first derivative of the model too. The cool thing is: there is basically no disturbance of the expected/predicted changes in the data. So I might be just “lucky” to be right with my prediction, because the price collapse happened to coincide with the predicted decline in production.įor that reason I added the other set of curves: the first derivative of the model and the change in production (5 month moving average). ![]() Besides that, one needs to aware of the price collapse and the possible impact on the industry. So basically it is pure geology, no impact of price whatsoever. It was based on Hubbert analysis, adding a seasonal effect on it. ![]() I am, honestly, stupified myself by the accuracy of the curve, that is 25 months old now without ever tinkering the parameters of the model.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |