Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby MD » Mon 13 Feb 2006, 07:29:04

or "Why We Can't Know, But Soon Will"

One particular segment of a predictive analysis at The Oil Drum caused me to pause in a momemt of great epiphany.

My great "eureka moment" follows. Let's see how it stands up to scrutiny.

The predictive models I have seen to date look at discovery and production history and attempt to use various mathematical models to predict future decline rates. The above referenced analysis does the same, but the segment that caused me to pause was right here:

"Here's a table that give the average growth rates during each of those intervals (as computed from the slopes of the linear fits).

1860-1891 13.9%
1891-1929 7.9%
1929-1942 3.9%
1942-1973 7.4%
1973-1979 2.1%
1979-1983 -4.0%
1983-2004 1.5%

Many of these dates have some economic or political significance."
(emphasis mine)

Thus my conclusion:

Production and Consumption are driven primarily by economic and polical factors as demonstrated by steady state growth(decline) rates that follow each cusp event.

Therefore:

Future production and consumption cannot be predicted by application of mathematical models based on discovery and production history!

To support my conclusion, I point to the 1.5% growth from 1983 to date. Given that growth has been driven by economics and politics, then the current fluctuation in energy markets is simply explained by the economic machine hitting up against production limits; which until recently have been met through energy providers mad scramble to eke out next year's 1.5%.

In simple terms, welcome to the peak of oil production my friend!

So what does that mean next?

I don't know, except that we are clearly at a cusp where a new growth(decline) rate is taking shape that is being driven more by geological factors than economic or political factors.

If it were possible to integrate politics and economics into predictive modeling, maybe our crystal balls would work better.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4953
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby netfind » Sat 18 Feb 2006, 21:25:00

The economics factors will either overproduce oil fields above the math curve or delay production below the math curve. But if you superimpose the math curve on all this, you get some predictive value when you consider that the final area under the actual production curve with all the deviations has to wind up being the same as the area under the math curve. So the over and under deviation areas have to be about equal.
User avatar
netfind
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun 13 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: The Ozarks

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby MicroHydro » Sat 18 Feb 2006, 22:02:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MD', 'P')roduction and Consumption are driven primarily by economic and polical factors as demonstrated by steady state growth(decline) rates that follow each cusp event.

Therefore:

Future production and consumption cannot be predicted by application of mathematical models based on discovery and production history!


Yes.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f it were possible to integrate politics and economics into predictive modeling, maybe our crystal balls would work better.


Yes.

This is a critical variable that investors deal with every day. Without a doubt, the largest unknown affecting oil production in 2006 is the question of war with Iran. If peace prevails, 2006 oil production could average close to 85mbpd again. If war breaks out, oil production is likely to fall below 80 mbpd, perhaps even below 70mbpd in the worst scenarios. If peace prevails and the economy cools, oil could test $50. If war breaks out, oil prices will set new records for sure. Yet this issue does not lend itself to TOD type mathematical modeling.

I am pessimistic in that there are multiple paths that multiple lone actors could take to ignite war, while peace requires cooperation by several actors with disparate interests. For peace to prevail, Iran AND Israel AND the US AND various non governmental actors all have to play nice all year. For what it is worth, my WAG is there is a 2/3 chance of war with Iran sometime in 2006. So I am staying long in energies and precious metals because I certainly don't want to be out of the market if TSHTF.

PS: The much touted March date for war with Iran is not to be taken seriously. If war does happen, it will come out of the clear blue sky when least expected, probably following a very hopeful peace agreement.
"The world is changed... I feel it in the water... I feel it in the earth... I smell it in the air... Much that once was, is lost..." - Galadriel
User avatar
MicroHydro
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sun 10 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Sun 19 Feb 2006, 03:53:58

And then we have the unknown reserve situation in Kuwait coupled with an even hotter fire in Nigeria to contend with. I hold little hope that things will remain on an even enough keel for smooth sailing.

I'm actually not as worried about Iran at the moment as I am with the seemingly increasing terrorist threat to infrastructure. I'm talking short term but just tonight there was video of something ablaze in Iraq(CNN). God forbid some extremist group figures out how to block up the Straight of Hormuz or take out a refinery or two.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby pup55 » Sun 19 Feb 2006, 07:18:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')roduction and Consumption are driven primarily by economic and polical factors as demonstrated by steady state growth(decline) rates that follow each cusp event.

Therefore:

Future production and consumption cannot be predicted by application of mathematical models based on discovery and production history!


Question for the board:

Can the argument be made that the production of one well can be predicted by mathematical modeling?
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby MD » Sun 19 Feb 2006, 13:28:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')roduction and Consumption are driven primarily by economic and polical factors as demonstrated by steady state growth(decline) rates that follow each cusp event.

Therefore:

Future production and consumption cannot be predicted by application of mathematical models based on discovery and production history!


Question for the board:

Can the argument be made that the production of one well can be predicted by mathematical modeling?


Absolutely! It can also be argued that production of field groups, or even global groups of wells can be predicted by modeling. The difficulty arises in that politics and econmics have significantly influenced past production, so that you have to look elsewhere for the data to predict ultimate recovery levels.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4953
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: On the ball
Top

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby backstop » Sun 19 Feb 2006, 14:25:23

MD,

While I'd concur with MicroHydro's agreements, I rather think that the term "Predictive Modelling" is a misnomer.

What a model can do effectively is to project probabilities from highly constrained information;
it cannot define, and thus predict, the outcome, as there are a swathe of unpredictable factors, some known and some never before seen,
that are certainly going to affect the experience of depletion.

Given that these unpredictables are a constant possibility, they perhaps deserve to be classed as K factors,
not least because that was Katrina's initial.

In this light with regard to Pup55's question:

"Can the argument be made that the production of one well can be predicted by mathematical modeling ?"

I'd differ with your (qualified) proposal that it can, since to predict production from a given well
there would be a need for various K factor data including the geographic -

i.e. if the well in S. Iraq or in Hampshire UK, how stable will conditions be during the production period,

and ideolgical -
e.g. concerning both the discount rates to be applied to define the rate of well-forcing,

(for those without my mere graduate level economics the discout rate is effectively the rate at which future income is discounted compared to present income,
and as such it forms a unique measure of our society's present cultural depravity and ongoing impoverishment)


and also the international price per tonne of CO2 emissions-permits under the operational UNFCCC treaty of the day,
which is likely to be a prime factor in dating a well's loss of economic viability.

So, while I'd well agree that the probabilities of a given well's production can, by excluding K factors, be projected by maths modelling,
predicting that production can not.

And this is not to knock Projective Modelling in the slightest, as its is plainly a critically important tool.


Regards,

Backstop
Last edited by backstop on Sun 19 Feb 2006, 14:40:19, edited 2 times in total.
"The best of conservation . . . is written not with a pen but with an axe."
(from "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold, 1948.
backstop
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Varies

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby pup55 » Sun 19 Feb 2006, 14:25:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t can also be argued that production of field groups, or even global groups of wells can be predicted by modeling


I was trying to be pedagogical. I will try not to let it happen again.

If the production of one well can be modeled, but production globally cannot be modeled (albeit for political, but not engineering reasons), there has to a numer between one and the maximum that will give us a valid model.

Maybe Khebab has amply demonstrated this in the post below that a curve sumnation of a large number of wells will lead to an overall predictive curve in roughly the same function shape as the individual wells.

This being the case, there is probably a base percentage of the oil productive capacity (however big it may be) that is usefully modeled, and a "swing" fraction that is not usefully modeled. In other words, a base number of wells that just crank away up to their geological potential until they run out, and the remainder which are turned on and off for various political and economic reasons.

I would also think that as demand reaches supply capacity, the fraction of this "swing capacity" will get smaller and maybe approach zero, at which point all the wells might be modeled to give a fairly decent expectation of future capacity. Some, however, might argue the opposite, and maybe that is a conversation that should be had.

But it might be possible to construct a two-part model, one part being "base capacity" modelable by some straightforward mathematical way, and another part being "swing capacity" that can be modeled in some other fashion. Then maybe a range of meaningful peak estimates can be arrived at with better predictive power.
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby MD » Sun 19 Feb 2006, 15:14:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '
')
I would also think that as demand reaches supply capacity, the fraction of this "swing capacity" will get smaller and maybe approach zero, at which point all the wells might be modeled to give a fairly decent expectation of future capacity.


There you go!
Now, if we can just get accurate data regarding "all the wells", we would be all set.

It seems we've quickly come around to Simmons' call for transparency.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4953
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: On the ball
Top

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby netfind » Mon 20 Feb 2006, 12:20:37

A single well can't be modelled by any Hubbert type math. Even a massive field of wells can't be accurrately done by a Hubbert bell curve. This is clear if you just look over a collection of production histories of the major mature fields. They hardly ever follow any smooth bell curve. A lot of Hubbert's detractors use this as evidence that he was a complete screwball. But Hubbert himself wrote in his early work that single fields should not be expected to be modelled by his process because of individual field rock characteristics. But he contended that a large aggregate of geographically mixed fields typically cancells out these rock differences, as for example the U.S. lower 48, which did, in fact, form a pretty smooth logistic math curve per his model.
User avatar
netfind
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun 13 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: The Ozarks

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby backstop » Mon 20 Feb 2006, 13:01:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t can also be argued that production of field groups, or even global groups of wells can be predicted by modeling


If the production of one well can be modeled, but production globally cannot be modeled (albeit for political, but not engineering reasons), there has to a numer between one and the maximum that will give us a valid model.

Maybe Khebab has amply demonstrated this in the post below that a curve sumnation of a large number of wells will lead to an overall predictive curve in roughly the same function shape as the individual wells.

This being the case, there is probably a base percentage of the oil productive capacity (however big it may be) that is usefully modeled, and a "swing" fraction that is not usefully modeled. In other words, a base number of wells that just crank away up to their geological potential until they run out, and the remainder which are turned on and off for various political and economic reasons.

I would also think that as demand reaches supply capacity, the fraction of this "swing capacity" will get smaller and maybe approach zero, at which point all the wells might be modeled to give a fairly decent expectation of future capacity. Some, however, might argue the opposite, and maybe that is a conversation that should be had.

But it might be possible to construct a two-part model, one part being "base capacity" modelable by some straightforward mathematical way, and another part being "swing capacity" that can be modeled in some other fashion. Then maybe a range of meaningful peak estimates can be arrived at with better predictive power.


Pup -

While a base capacity & swing capacity seems a reasonable hypothesis for the up-slope, I don't follow your confidence of it occurring from here on.

Where, under post PO conditions, is that base capacity, and how is it isolated from the intensifying K Factors ?

What confidence can we have of either Russia or the ME remaining stable and coherent enough to maintain orderly oil production from a declining resource with intensifying price turbulence and a declining industrial base ?

Similarly, until last year, the GOM might have been regarded as a haven of such stability, but no more.

Therefore I'd suggest that we face increasing, not declining uncertainty over the curve of future production, and to the extent we've enjoyed swing (ready output) capacity to date, the future swing (unpredictable) capacity as a fraction of overall production must be an increasing proportion.

regards,

Backstop
"The best of conservation . . . is written not with a pen but with an axe."
(from "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold, 1948.
backstop
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Varies
Top

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby pup55 » Mon 20 Feb 2006, 15:31:32

Thinking kind of creatively at the moment...

You can call this the "as bad as things ever got" model. Examples: Iran, after the revolution, still managed to produce a milliion or so barrels per day. Saudi maybe it's 5 million. For the Soviet Union, maybe it's what they were producing after their revolution, 4-5 million. Mexico and Indonesia probably have similar curves. In other words, at some point in time, not necessarily the same point, this was as bad as things ever got.

So the base model would be some gaussian/logistics simulation of the production of these countries, using these points of "minimal production under stress" as a point on the curve somehow, then sum the curves to determine the global "worst case" curve of minimum produciton.

Everything over and above that might be "swing capacity" subject to being shut off at a given point, and this can also be modeled: sine wave, random peaks and troughs, spikes of magnitude X , steady state, etc. until the reserves run out.
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby MD » Mon 20 Feb 2006, 15:37:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'T')hinking kind of creatively at the moment...

You can call this the "as bad as things ever got" model. Examples: Iran, after the revolution, still managed to produce a milliion or so barrels per day. Saudi maybe it's 5 million. For the Soviet Union, maybe it's what they were producing after their revolution, 4-5 million. Mexico and Indonesia probably have similar curves. In other words, at some point in time, not necessarily the same point, this was as bad as things ever got.

So the base model would be some gaussian/logistics simulation of the production of these countries, using these points of "minimal production under stress" as a point on the curve somehow, then sum the curves to determine the global "worst case" curve of minimum produciton.

Everything over and above that might be "swing capacity" subject to being shut off at a given point, and this can also be modeled: sine wave, random peaks and troughs, spikes of magnitude X , steady state, etc. until the reserves run out.


So when can we expect this done and posted here, since you were so kind to offer?
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4953
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: On the ball
Top

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Tue 21 Feb 2006, 12:42:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '
')Everything over and above that might be "swing capacity" subject to being shut off at a given point, and this can also be modeled: sine wave, random peaks and troughs, spikes of magnitude X , steady state, etc. until the reserves run out.


Thinking of the problem as simply a reduction in reserves walks right into the typical logic trap which blows these types of models up right out of the box. Reserves are not static, they have never been, they aren't today, and they won't be in the future. So simply using an equation to deplete a static number ends up having NOTHING to do with what will be producable in the future.
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby MD » Tue 21 Feb 2006, 12:59:31

My initial conclusion statement may have been too broad. It may be beter stated as:

"Future production and consumption cannot be predicted by fitting curves to global production history"
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4953
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby pup55 » Wed 22 Feb 2006, 13:27:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o when can we expect this done and posted here


I am still thinking about it, but one of my old models should be fairly adaptable to the project.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')eserves are not static, they have never been, they aren't today, and they won't be in the future. So simply using an equation to deplete a static number ends up having NOTHING to do with what will be producable in the future.


"reserves" would have to be variable, with growth rate being a function of some type: the gap between supply and demand, for example, if any. "reserves history" from the BP review might be consulted for a way to think about this.

A question for you: I agree that reserves are not "static", but are reserves "finite"?
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby MD » Wed 22 Feb 2006, 15:50:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ElijahJones', 'S')orry..........some folks prepare.


You decribe a very bleak and dark future through stating simple facts. Time for me to get depressed again........you make it difficult for me to maintain my optimistic stance.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4953
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: On the ball
Top

Re: The Problem With Predictive Modeling

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Sat 25 Feb 2006, 19:31:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '
')Everything over and above that might be "swing capacity" subject to being shut off at a given point, and this can also be modeled: sine wave, random peaks and troughs, spikes of magnitude X , steady state, etc. until the reserves run out.


Thinking of the problem as simply a reduction in reserves walks right into the typical logic trap which blows these types of models up right out of the box. Reserves are not static, they have never been, they aren't today, and they won't be in the future. So simply using an equation to deplete a static number ends up having NOTHING to do with what will be producable in the future.


Unless you calibrate the effect.

So, if you calibrate the way that reserves build up historically you have a shot at a good prediction. The way that reserves grow has similarities to the parabolic growth law of oxides (actually a misnamed square root growth law). Andrew Grove, CEO of Intel, actually did pioneered this work for his PhD thesis back in the 60's. The basic idea is that the volume of the oxide shoots up rapidly and then starts to slow down, essentially proportional to the square root of time. We never would have had precise control of silicon oxide thickness and therefore of the large-scale integration of microprocessors if fabrication engineers did not calibrate the rate of this growth. This whole conversation would have taken place by the post.

It's funny that no one in the petroleum industry wants to calibrate this analagous growth factor, and therefore predict with more certainty how much we will have in store for the future.

http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2006/0 ... rowth.html
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Next

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron