Comments on the data of the Hill’s Group ETP model · PDF file1 Jean Laherrère 12...

1

Jean Laherrère 12 March 2017 Comments on the data of the Hill’s Group ETP model When I heard for the first time about the ETP model by the Hill’s Group, I found that it was based on exergy, but without quoting Robert Ayres who was the only one (with B. Warr) reporting historical series on exergy (useful energy)

See my comments on Ayres’ article pages 20 to 28 Laherrere J.H. 2014 «Oil and gas perspectives in the 21st century » ESCP London debate 17 Feb. http://aspofrance.viabloga.com/files/JL_ESCP_London_2014.pdf

The US exergy (green) follows the primary energy supply (red). Starting at 1 from 1900, US, UK and Japan exergy have grown differently

2

Starting from 1900 the exergy of UK grows less, starting from a high level, when Japan exergy growth is larger starting from a low level. There are many problems to get reliable data on exergy, as for EROI. The best example is the many articles on corn ethanol EROI which cannot decide if the EROI is above or below 1, as quoted recently by Charlie Hall (the first one to introduce EROI) http://peakoil.com/generalideas/charlie-hall-on-eroei

So, without more detailed data the ETP model was for me unreliable but difficult to comment except that any report based on exergy should refer to the world historical exergy values and I do not know any such data. But recently I found a more detailed 2015 Hill’s Group paper on the site http://peakoilbarrel.com/on-the-thermodynamic-model-of-oil-extraction-by-the-hills-group/#more-15049 On the Thermodynamic Model of Oil Extraction by the Hill’s Group by Dennis Coyne Posted on 02/24/2017 A Guest Post by SK The report reviewed here claims to rely on thermodynamics arguments to predict oil’s price-volume trajectory going forward. http://www.thehillsgroup.org/petrohgv2.pdf

3

My comments on this 2015 paper argue not about the theory, but about the data they use: most of the data is badly defined and mostly wrong! -page 3

The Hill’s Group confuses Darcy and Darsie: they know very little the oil industry and the measure of permeability! Conventional crude oil is not restricted to the range 30-45 °API. All heavy oils are below 30°API and condensate above 45°API. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hassan_Harraz/publication/301842929_BENCHMARKS_OF_CRUDE_OILS/links/572a065b08aef7c7e2c4ede8.pdf?origin=publication_list

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=7110

4

EIA reports US condensate (>45°API) with crude oil production and reports crude oil production by type only since 2011 (the States do not provide such data).

LTO production is lighter, in particular Eagle Ford https://btuanalytics.com/quality-matters-api-gravities-of-major-us-fields/

5

Hill’s definition 30-45 °API of crude oil excludes 15% of US L48 oil production below 30°API and 22% above 45°API: in total Hill’s definition excludes 37% of the USL48 oil production http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=23952

Most of California oil production is below 30°API

6

It is worse including oil imports: The average crude oil input to refinery 1985 to 2015 is just above 30°API, meaning that about 50% is below 30 °API

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_ipct_k_a.htm The percentage of 30-45 °API in the US imported crude oil was 84% in 1978 but only 35% in 2016

7

It means that Hill’s definition of petroleum does not agree with the petroleum production values they used! There is no consensus on the definition of conventional, outside that the extra-heavy (including the tarsands) are obviously unconventional because their trapping is different (no water contact being heavier than water)

IEA reports conventional oil production for the world as OPEC and NOPEC in their WEO from 2008 to 2016 (see table 3.11)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

US percentage of imported crude oil by API gravity from EIA

<20°API 20.1-25 °API 25.1-30 °API 30.1-35 °API

35;1-40 °API 40.1-45 °API >45 °API 30-45 °API

Jean Laherrere March 2017

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

cum

ulat

ive p

rodu

ctio

n G

b

crud

e oi

l les

s ex

tra-

heav

y pr

oduc

tion

Gb

year

World crude oil production and cumulative production from EIA

crude oil Gb EIA

crude-XH

crude-XH-LTO

CP crude oil

Jean Laherrere Jan 2017

source:http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/?tbl=T11.01B#/?f=A&start=1973&end=2015&charted=0-11-12

8

The plot shows that world conventional crude oil as defined by IEA peaked about 2005 (no detail for 2004 and 2006)

WEO2010 page 48 said that the conventional crude oil peaked in 2006 (in fact a bumpy plateau at 70 Mb/d) as shown in this graph

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Mb/

d

year

world conventional crude oil production from IEA/WEO 2010 to 2016

world

OPEC

NOPEC


9

The Hill’s Group lacks a precise knowledge about oil production and lacks the wish to improve his knowledge!

Why gross and net exergy? Most papers report only exergy: -Wikipedia has another definition of exergy: “In thermodynamics, the exergy (in older usage, available work and/or availability) of a system is the maximum useful work possible during a process that brings the system into equilibrium with a heat reservoir.” -Goran Wall 1977 (http://exergy.se/goran/thesis/paper1/paper1.html) “Exergy is that part of energy that is convertible into all other forms of energy.” -Robert Ayres 1997: “Exergy is defined as the potential work that can be extracted from a system by reversible processes as the system equilibrates with its surroundings. It is, in fact, the ‘useful’ part of energy and is what most people mean when they use the term ‘energy’ carelessly (as in economics). There are four components of exergy. They are: (i) kinetic exergy associated with relative motion; (ii) potential field exergy associated with gravitational or electro-magnetic field differentials; (iii) physical exergy (from pressure & temperature differentials); and (iv) chemical exergy (arising from differences in chemical composition).” Exergy is reported in terajoules TJ or in petajoules PJ -Quora “Exergy is the maximum useful work which can be obtained in a process in which system obtains dead state.” -IEA https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/statistics_manual.pdf reports page 20 that gross caloric value includes all the heat released from the fuel, when net calorific value excludes the latent heat of the water formed during the combustion: it is not the definition above where work at the wellhead is excluded from the gross! Exergy is the usable energy, the useful energy, the available energy (Gibbs 1878), the quality of energy: there is no gross or net as defined by the Hill’s Group!

10

Oil production is counted by barrels and not gallons! -page 5

The Hill’s Group is unable to write correctly my name with Leharrère instead of Laherrère when it is correctly written in their reference 7

-page 8

Why 537 °R? -page 9

Why is the reserve temperature given in °R = degree Rankine? Degree Rankine is tied with °F (Fahrenheit) and K = degree Kelvin

°R = °F +459.67 °R = K*1.8 537 °R = 77 °F = 25 °C (omitted by the Hill’s Group)

The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends against using it: it is an obsolete unit! The Hill’s Group ignores the SI units, which are the rules in everywhere in the world outside Liberia, Myanmar and the US nonfederal (US federal agencies are obliged to use the SI since 1993: in 1998 Mars Climate Orbiter crashed on March because NASA sent the instructions in newton SI when the builder

11

Lockheed built it in pound!), but they quote in reference 14 the IPCC data, which reports only temperature in °C! http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/proc-renewables-lubeck.pdf

They quote the heat content of a gallon (oil production is measured in barrel!) of 35.7 °API

but they forget to mention that the density of the oil has changed with time and the world average oil gravity is not 35.7 °API Oil is getting lighter and the ratio barrel per tonne oil equivalent increases

-page 10 This graph below displays the lack of rigor of the Hill’s Group papers with 2357.15 Gb and 2123.46 GB: why Gb and GB? Why 6 significant digits for an estimate of an ultimate, which is widely uncertain: from my side, I use only two significant digits! The horizontal scale is called year, but in fact the number is the year less 1900! Why not to plot year since 1900 as some other Hill’s graphs. API reported world oil production since 1857 and the cumulative oil production in 1900 is 0.4 Gb a: this data should have been mentioned! Why to show in their graphs 1900 as zero and not 1900: it is confusing!

6

7

8

9

10

11

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

b/to

e, b

/t

year

world oil b/t from BP and b/toe from EIA

EIA prod NGPL b/toe

BP prod US oil b/t

BP cons inc biofuels b/t

BP prod oil exc biofuels b/t

EIA consumption b/toe

EIA prod C+C b/toe

Jean Laherrere June 2015

12

The Hill’s Group said that our data has reached an inflexion point of 1061.73 Gb in April of 1995, but our data say quite differently: in 1995, the cumulative production was 820 Gb for all liquids, 800 Gb for oil and NGL and 760 Gb for crude oil less extra-heavy. This value of 1061.73 Gb is ridiculous and completely wrong!

13

-page 12

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

2400

2700

3000

1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

cum

ulat

ive p

rodu

ctio

n G

b

year

world cumulative oil production

all liquids

U = 3000 Gb

crude+NGL

U = 2200 Gb

crude-XH

Jean Laherrere Jan 2017

14

Again, reporting ultimates with 4 and 6 significant digits! Why is the purpose of using 6 digits? To show that they know better, in fact they show that they do not know. Their inflection point is wrong! _page 13

mass of crude in barrels: confusion of mass and volume -page 14

why to start the cumulative production from 1960 (being about 120 Gb)? Why in a paper of 2015 to stop the data in 2009 and to start only at 1960? Furthermore graph 9 displays oil price until 2011, more than graph 5 Why to delete the second oil shock of 1980 and to keep the price peak of 2008?

15

It appears that what is called actual $/b is the nominal price, when the real price is quite different as shown in the next graph from BP2016

The peak of nominal oil price is 110 $/b in 2011 & 2012 when it is less than 100 $/b in graph 5. It seems queer to model the price with an exponential curve with no limit The plot of the real oil price ($2015) versus the crude oil + condensate production display a ceiling of about 120 $2014/b and a wall of 80 Mb/d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

$/b

year

oil price from BP 2016

$ money of the day

$ 2015

Jean Laherrere July 2016

16

-page 16 & 17

The Hill’s Group claims that the US is a good proxy for the world well depth. They are wrong, as shown by the graphs below using IHS data. They are also wrong: confusing the depth of the reservoir with the total depth of the well reported by EIA IHS reports the temperature and the depth of the reservoir (more than 50 000 fields for 2010) for the period 1860-2010: it shows that the North America is obviously different from the other continents, which display similar curves.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

oil p

rice

$20

14/b

crude + condensate production Mb/d from EIA

oil price ($2014) versus world crude production 1861-2015

BP S2015

EIA first purchase1859 440 $/b 20 b/d

1860 260 $/b 1400 b/d1861 13 $/b 5800 b/d1864 120 $/b 6300 b/d

1931 10 $/b 3.7 Mb/d

1882 19 $/b 0.1 Mb/d

1973

1979

2004

2014

1998

wall ?

ceiling ?whale oil (Starbuck 1878)1820 300 $/b 160 b/d1850 800 $/b 710 b/d

1978

1928-1973 seven sisters = posted price


2015

17

The US reservoir average depth is much larger in 2010 with 5000 m than the other continents with 2500 m EIA average development oilwell is about 1500 m in 2010 when the exploratory oil well is deeper with 2500 m The depth value of chart 1 page 18 is plotted on the graph above and agrees with EIA development oilwell total depth, when EIA exploratory oil well depth fairly agrees with IHS continents excluding North America. EIA annual development oilwell are strongly disturbed by the large infilling of wells in old fields, when EIA exploratory oilwell are new discoveries The detail of IHS continent reservoir depth and number of discoveries versus time is reported for few ones (I have all of them for those interested) For North America frontier reservoir depth increases steadily, when the number of discoveries peaked around 2000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

aver

age

dept

h m

year

world average annual reservoir depth from IHS compared to EIA total deph

NAm frontier

ME

LatAm

Far East

Europe

CIS

Australasia

Africa

Hill's chart 1

EIA develop. oilwell TD

EIA explo. oilwell TD

Jean Laherrere March 2017 source IHS 2010 & EIA 2017

18

Fort Europe regular depth increase from 1920 to 1990 and plateau beyond. Peak of discoveries around 1985

For Africa increase of depth from 1940 to 1970 and plateau after, but peak of annual number of discoveries 1981 and 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

num

ber o

f ann

ual d

iscov

erie

s

aver

age

dept

h m

year

North America frontier reservoir average annual depth

average depth m

annual number of fields

Jean Laherrere March 2017 source IHS 2010

total = 1505 fields

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1830 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

num

ber o

f ann

ual d

iscov

erie

s

aver

age

dept

h m

year

Europe reservoir average annual depth

average depth m



total = 8468 fields

19

Middle East reservoir depth is oscillating between 2000 and 2500 m since 1950 when the number of discoveries peaked around 1980

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

num

ber o

f ann

ual d

iscov

erie

s

aver

age

dept

h m

year

Africa reservoir average annual depth

average depth m


Jean Laherrere March 2017source IHS 2010

total = 5228 fields

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

num

ber o

f ann

ual d

iscov

erie

s

aver

age

dept

h m

year

Middle East reservoir average annual depth

average depth m



total = 2690 fields

20

The temperature of the reservoir (21329 fields) is plotted versus the depth of the reservoir The plot for North America (NAm) frontier displays two trends, the upper one with a trend line of 27°C/km and the lower one with a trend line of 14°C/km.

The upper trend is close to the trends of the other continents The lower trend is not seen in the other continents Same graph with the other continents linear trend lines, which display similar trends. The earth gradient of 25°C/km is close to the Europe/CIS linear trends.

The plot for Europe displays a fairly well grouped trend line

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

tem

pera

ture

°C

depth meter

North America frontier reservoirs : temperature versus depth

gradient 27°C/km

gradient 13°C/km

Temp Max Val Deg C

Jean Laherrere March 2017 source: IHS2010Jean Laherrere March 2017

1075 temperature dataout of 1505 fields

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

tem

pera

ture

°C

depth meter

reservoirs : temperature versus depthNAm compared to other continents trend lines

NAm

ME

LatAm

Far East

Europe

CIS

Australasia

Africa

gradient 30°C/km

gradient 25°C/km


source: IHS2010

21

About the same for CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States = FSU)

There is less data for Africa and the cloud is wider.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

tem

pera

ture

°C

depth meter

Europe reservoirs : temperature versus depth

Temp Max Val Deg C

Jean Laherrere March 2017 source: IHS2010


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

tem

pera

ture

°C

depth meter

CIS (FSU) reservoirs : temperature versus depth

Temp Max Val Deg C


13 123 temperature dataout of 16 258 fields

22

Middle East plot is more concentrated, except for one point = Iran 2009 Azadegan with 37°C at 5192 m, being wrong because another reservoir in the same field is at 134 °C at 4035 m: it seems that the temperature should be 137 and not 37 °C (first digit missing)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

tem

pera

ture

°C

depth meter

Africa reservoirs : temperature versus depth

Temp Max Val Deg C



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

tem

pera

ture

°C

depth meter

Middle East reservoirs : temperature versus depth

Temp Max Val Deg C



value wrong by 100 °C first digit missing?

23

-page 17 The temperature of the reservoir is calculated from the earth temperature of 1°F per 70 feet of depth (14) [14] IPCC SCOPING MEETING ON RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/proc-renewables-lubeck.pdf page 62: an average thermal gradient of 25-30°C/km, http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/Terms.aspx?LookIn=term%20name&filter=geothermal %20gradient Schlumberger: average 25 to 30 °C/km [15 °F/1000 ft] Rankine temperature is not indicated! My above graphs of the temperature are reported in °C, as all scientific papers The Hill’s Group reports the total depth and not the depth of the reservoir. EIA well depth graph 7 (15) [15] EIAAverage Depth of Crude Oil and Natural Gas Wells http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_welldep_s1_a.htm

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

tem

pera

ture

°C

depth meter

Latin America reservoirs : temperature versus depth

Temp Max Val Deg C



24

The graph 7 (EIA well total depth) does not represent the depth of the reservoir of new fields and the US is not representative of the world.

Chart 1 does not represent the depth of the reservoirs of the world. Usually data are reported for the end of the year (except few as OGJ for the reserves) and not the beginning of the year -page 18

25

Too many useless significant digits in chart 1showing that the authors do not understand accuracy: the reported value should be restricted to a number of significant digits in correlation with accuracy: oil data is usually with an accuracy of about 5% and only two digits are significant. Decimal should be prohibited! -page 19 “As a result of the fixed specific exergy of petroleum EG (140,000 BTU/gal)” 140 000 Btu/gal = 5880 kBtu/b when the heat content of crude oil +condensate from EIA varies in 2014 from 5084 (Sudan) to 6393 (Cuba)

26

The median heat content of the crude oil is about 5880 kBtu/b, taken by the Hill’s group od of the exergy of petroleum, but the average (weighted by production) is 5860 kBtu/b., showing that only 2 significant digits is reliable (5900). But https://www.ihrdc.com/els/po-demo/module01/mod_001_03.htm reports 1 barrel = 6000 kBtu There are few papers reporting the relationship between gravity and heat content. The plot of Canada oil products energy content versus gravity is about linear (not exactly as medium below light) GJ/m3 = 44-0.16 API Or kBtu/b = 7430 – 26.5 API for 35.7 API = 6436 kBtu for 35.7API = 6484 kBtu

5000

5100

5200

5300

5400

5500

5600

5700

5800

5900

6000

6100

6200

6300

6400

6500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

heat

cont

ent k

BTU

/b

cumulative crude +condensate Mb/d

EIA 2014 crude oil +condensate heat content versus production

heat content kBtu/b

Jean Laherrere 2015

Sudan 5084

Cuba 6393

US 5800 constant since 1950!

average 5860 kBtu/bmedian 5880 kBtu/b

y = -0,1581x + 44,314!

30!

35!

40!

45!

10! 15! 20! 25! 30! 35! 40! 45! 50! 55! 60! 65! 70!

heat

con

tent

GJ/

m3!

°API!

Canada oil products energy content vs gravity!

Jean Laherrere March 2015!

aviation gasoline!

asphalt!

heavy fuel oil!

lubricant & greases!

light fuel oil!

kerosene!diesel!

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/57-601-x/2010004/appendix-appendice1-eng.htm!

heavy oil!

medium & light oil!

27

Xavier Chavanne after his 2013 book (Energy Efficiency: what it is, why it is important, and how to assess it) reports (voir Laherrere Nice 2015 figure 6 http://www.clubdenice.eu/2015/Jean_LAHERRERE.pdf) also a linear relationship from Chevron data between gravity and heat content

All data above shows the poor accuracy of the heat content of oil production

28

-page 20

Graph 9 is based on graph 5 that I call queer above with an exponential model without limit! Graph 9 stops in 2011, when graph 5 stops in 2009! Graphs are not actualized! -page 24

29

Graph 12 covers only the period 1970-2007, when graph 9 covers 1960-2011 It is quite heterogeneous! A paper dated 2015 should be updated to 2014 -page 29

30

The fit looks good when removing the period 1980-1985 and 2012-2015. It is a lack of rigor to remove data to improve the fit The missing oil price of 2015 about 50 $/b (instead of 120 $/b) disturbs widely the fit -page 31

31

Claiming a 98.5 % confidence intervals must be wrong when adding the missing period 1980-1985, 2012-2015 The Hill’s Group shows a poor understanding of accuracy -page 33

I do not see why the maximum energy is from a 37.5°API crude -page 34

-page 37

The Hill’s Group claims that 37.5°API and 35.7°API have the same energy content: it looks about confusion and the oil price is not defined: the most often used is WTI (graph 31) which has a gravity of 39.9 °API, when Brent of 38.06 °API and OPEC Reference Basket of about 32.7°API See also my comments page 19. -page 39

32

The actual oil price value of about 50 $/b in 2015 fits badly with the projected value of 120 $/b! -page 42 graph 24

See my doubts on gross and net energy page 3!

33

There is no reference or justification that the conventional crude oil has an average gravity of 35.7 °API on the fact that I believe that it is impossible to report a value on such uncertain measure with 3 significant digits: it means that it is a guess -page 43

Graph 25 I assume that the above displays GDP in current dollars! The world GDP in constant dollars ($2010) correlates well with the primary energy from 1900 to 1979 (second oil shock) as shown in the next graph (see page 30 Laherrere J.H. 2016 “Croissance ou pas croissance selon les données: PIB, population, énergie” Club de Nice 24 novembre https://aspofrance.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/jl_nice2016longfr.pdf), but diverges beyond

34

But there are three GDP: current, constant and PPP (purchase power parity) and they differ widely: it is why both should be displayed

Plotting the two world GDP versus current and constant dollars gives two different graphs The first one should be compared to graph 25 (1970-2009), but dealing with a larger range: the exponential trend line is not very good

0,1

1,0

10,0

100,0

1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025

PE G

toe

& G

DP

T$20

10 lo

g sc

ale

year

world primary energy, GDP & population in log scaleGDP T$2010

PE x 3.7

PE Gtoe

Enerdata PE

population

growth 4%/a

growth 3%/a

growth 2%/a

growth 1%/a

Jean Laherrere 19 Sept 2016

growth rate 1979-2015GDP 2.85 %/aPE 1.85 %/apopulation 1.5 %/a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

GD

P G

$

year

World GDP from WB

GDP current T$ WB

GDP T$2010 WB

Jean Laherrere Sept 2016

35

Using GDP in current dollar displays a decline in 2015, far from the exponential trend line: modelling with a single function looks difficult, contrary to the plot in constant dollar. The second graph with constant dollar displays a good linear correlation (R2=0.99).

Dealing with constant dollar gives a completely different model than with current dollars -page 47

y = 1,5589e0,0035x

R² = 0,94129

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

GD

P G

$

cumulative crude oil production Gb

World GDP versus crude oil production 1960-2015

GDP current T$ WB

Expon. (GDP current T$ WB)


y = 0,0524x + 4,3727R² = 0,99044

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

GD

P G

$201

0

cumulative crude oil production Gb

World GDP $2010 versus crude oil production 1960-2015

GDP T$2010 WB

Linéaire (GDP T$2010 WB)


36

The logistic model forecasts 120 $/b for 2015, when the actual price is about 50 $/b Modelling oil price is for me impossible because the irrational behavior of consumers (price is settled by the refiners) and not the oil future) -conclusion The Hill’s Group uses a wrong definition for the crude production and for the temperature of the reservoir (at total depth), obsolete units and ridiculous number of significant digits. The time series are incomplete, starting in 1960, eliminating 1980-1985 and stopping in 2009 or 2011. The data used in this paper is wrong, as the way they write my name: Leharrère. Without any judgment on the theory, only on the data: the ETP model is GIGO:

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Comments on the data of the Hill’s Group ETP model · PDF file1 Jean Laherrère 12...

Documents

Transcript of Comments on the data of the Hill’s Group ETP model · PDF file1 Jean Laherrère 12...