by copious.abundance » Fri 12 Feb 2010, 23:50:45
In fact, now that I re-read it, he's obviously being sarcastic.
His first post was here. This is where he is joking around/being sarcastic but sounding like he was mad:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6206#comment-588817Here it becomes obvious he was joking around:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6206#comment-588839And here he explains his point more seriously:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6206#comment-588889First, Gail said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't see an issue with what Mr. Pimental said regarding the 5.0% versus 5.1% decline rate. What he says is, "Your estimate of 5% in the decline rate applied to declining production was almost right. The exact number is 5.1%."
In essence, she was saying, "Why did he bother to mention this? It's a trivial difference." Then Rockman agrees:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '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.
I do appreciate the need to be diplomatic but when one party starts out from a completely indefensable position where do you go? Do you pretend to believe what can't be believed? Do you try to change the position of someone who allows no possibility of error...even the smallest? The best I can allow for this fellow that he felt obligated for political reason to make that statement. But if he feels forced to make such a statement how can one expect any meaningful conversation?
Just to lighten the tone I'll remind you of the old question: 2 + 2 = ?
Engineer: 4.0000
Reservoir geologist: something between 3 and 5
Lawyer/Gov't Spokesman: What do you want it to be?
Pimentel probably did spend a bit too much time in his response describing the 5.0 vs 5.1 difference, but I suppose he was just trying to be technically accurate and explain the source of the number.