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
1
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
2
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_CRUD E_OILS/links/572a065b08aef7c7e2c4ede8.pdf?origin=publication_list
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=7110
3
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/
4
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
5
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
6 US percentage of imported crude oil by API gravity from EIA 90 Jean Laherrere March 2017 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
<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
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)
World crude oil production and cumulative production from EIA
30 1500
source: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/?tbl 25 =T11.01B#/?f=A&start=1973&end=2015&charted=0 1250 -11-12
20 1000
heavy productionGb heavy 15 750 - crude oil Gb EIA crude-XH 10 500 crude-XH-LTO cumulativeproductionGb CP crude oil de oil less de less oilextra 5 250 cru
0 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Jean Laherrere Jan 2017 year
IEA reports conventional oil production for the world as OPEC and NOPEC in their WEO from 2008 to 2016 (see table 3.11)
7
The plot shows that world conventional crude oil as defined by IEA peaked about 2005 (no detail for 2004 and 2006) world conventional crude oil production from IEA/WEO 2010 to 2016 80 world
70 OPEC NOPEC
60
50
40 Mb/d
30
20
10
0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Jean Laherrere March 2017 year
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
8
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! 9
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 10 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 world oil b/t from BP and b/toe from EIA
11
EIA prod NGPL b/toe 10 BP prod US oil b/t BP cons inc biofuels b/t BP prod oil exc biofuels b/t EIA consumption b/toe 9 EIA prod C+C b/toe b/toe,b/t 8
7
6 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 year Jean Laherrere June 2015
-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!
11
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!
12 world cumulative oil production 3000
2700 all liquids 2400 U = 3000 Gb
2100 crude+NGL
1800 U = 2200 Gb crude-XH 1500
1200
900 cumulativeproductionGb 600
300
0 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 Jean Laherrere Jan 2017 year
-page 12
13
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?
14
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 oil price from BP 2016 120
110
100 $ money of the day
90 $ 2015
80
70
60 $/b 50
40
30
20
10
0 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Jean Laherrere July 2016 year 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
15 oil price ($2014) versus world crude production 1861-2015 120 ceiling ?
110 whale oil (Starbuck 1878) 197 1820 300 $/b 160 b/d BP S2015 9 100 1850 800 $/b 710 b/d EIA first 2014 90 1859 440 $/b 20 b/d purchase 80 1860 260 $/b 1400 b/d 1861 13 $/b 5800 b/d 70 1864 120 $/b 6300 b/d 197 60 8 200 1882 19 $/b 0.1 Mb/d 50 4 2015
oil price price $2014/boil 40 1928-1973 seven sisters = posted price wall ? 30
20
10 1931 10 $/b 3.7 Mb/d 1973 199 0 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Jean Laherrere March 2016 crude + condensate production Mb/d from EIA
-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.
16 world average annual reservoir depth from IHS compared to EIA total deph 6000 NAm frontier ME 5000 LatAm Far East Europe 4000 CIS Australasia
3000 Africa Hill's chart 1 EIA develop. oilwell TD average depthaverage m 2000 EIA explo. oilwell TD
1000
0 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Jean Laherrere March 2017 year source IHS 2010 & EIA 2017
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
17 North America frontier reservoir average annual depth 6000 120
5000 average depth m 100 annual number of fields
4000 80
total = 1505 fields
3000 60 average depthaverage m 2000 40 number of annualnumberofdiscoveries
1000 20
0 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Jean Laherrere March 2017 year source IHS 2010
Fort Europe regular depth increase from 1920 to 1990 and plateau beyond. Peak of discoveries around 1985 Europe reservoir average annual depth 3000 250 average depth m
annual number of fields 2500 200 total = 8468 fields
2000 150
1500
100 average depthaverage m 1000 number of annualnumberofdiscoveries
50 500
0 0 1830 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 year source IHS 2010 Jean Laherrere March 2017
For Africa increase of depth from 1940 to 1970 and plateau after, but peak of annual number of discoveries 1981 and 2008 18 Africa reservoir average annual depth 3000 180 average depth m 160 annual number of fields 2500 140
2000 120
total = 5228 fields 100 1500 80 average depthaverage m 1000 60 number of annualnumberofdiscoveries 40 500 20
0 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 year source IHS 2010 Jean Laherrere March 2017
Middle East reservoir depth is oscillating between 2000 and 2500 m since 1950 when the number of discoveries peaked around 1980 Middle East reservoir average annual depth 3000 90 average depth m 80 annual number of fields 2500 70 total = 2690 fields
2000 60
50 1500 40 average depthaverage m 1000 30 number of annualnumberofdiscoveries 20 500 10
0 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 source IHS 2010 Jean Laherrere March 2017 year
19
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.
North America frontier reservoirs : temperature versus depth 220
200 1075 temperature data 180 out of 1505 fields
160
C 140 °
120
100
80 temperature
60 gradient 27°C/km 40 gradient 13°C/km
20 Temp Max Val Deg C
0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Jean Laherrere March 2017 depth meter source: IHS2010
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. reservoirs : temperature versus depth NAm compared to other continents trend lines 200
180
160
140 C ° 120 NAm 100 ME 80 LatAm temperature Far East 60 Europe 40 CIS Australasia 20 source: IHS2010 Africa 0 gradient 30°C/km 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 gradient 25°C/km Jean Laherrere March 2017 depth meter
The plot for Europe displays a fairly well grouped trend line 20 Europe reservoirs : temperature versus depth 220
200
180
160 C
° 140
120
100
80 temperature 60 2514 temperature data out of 8468 fields 40
20 Temp Max Val Deg C 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 depth meter Jean Laherrere March 2017 source: IHS2010
About the same for CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States = FSU)
CIS (FSU) reservoirs : temperature versus depth 220
200
180
160 C
° 140
120
100 13 123 temperature data 80 out of 16 258 fields temperature 60
40
20 Temp Max Val Deg C 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 depth meter Jean Laherrere March 2017 source: IHS2010
There is less data for Africa and the cloud is wider.
21 Africa reservoirs : temperature versus depth 220
200
180
160 C
° 140
120
100 709 temperature data 80 out of 5229 fields temperature 60
40
20 Temp Max Val Deg C 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 depth meter Jean Laherrere March 2017 source: IHS2010
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) Middle East reservoirs : temperature versus depth 220
200 Temp Max Val Deg C
180
160 450 temperature data out of 2690 fields C
° 140
120
100
80 temperature value wrong by 100 °C 60 first digit missing? 40
20
0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Jean Laherrere March 2017 depth meter source: IHS2010
22 Latin America reservoirs : temperature versus depth
220
200 Temp Max Val Deg C
180
160
C 140 °
120
100 1751 temperature data out of 8028 fields 80 temperature 60
40
20
0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Jean Laherrere March 2017 depth meter source: IHS2010
-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] EIA Average Depth of Crude Oil and Natural Gas Wells http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_welldep_s1_a.htm
23
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
24
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)
25 EIA 2014 crude oil +condensate heat content versus production
6500 6400 Cuba 6393 6300 6200 6100 average 5860 kBtu/b median 5880 kBtu/b 6000 5900 5800
5700 US 5800 constant since 1950! 5600 5500 heat contentheatkBTU/b 5400 5300 5200 heat content kBtu/b Sudan 5084 5100 5000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 cumulative crude +condensate Mb/d Jean Laherrere 2015
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
Canada oil products energy content vs gravity! 45! asphalt!
heavy fuel oil!
! heavy oil!
40! light fuel oil!
medium lubricant kerosene! & light oil! & greases! diesel!
35! y = -0,1581x + 44,314! heat content GJ/m3
aviation gasoline! http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/57-601-x/ 2010004/appendix-appendice1-eng.htm!
30! 10! 15! 20! 25! 30! 35! 40! 45! 50! 55! 60! 65! 70! Jean Laherrere March 2015! °API!
26
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
27 -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
28
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
29
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
30
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
31
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!
32
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
33 GDP T$2010 world primary energy, GDP & population in log scale
100,0 PE x 3.7 PE Gtoe Enerdata PE population growth 4%/a growth 3%/a 10,0 growth 2%/a growth 1%/a
1,0
growth rate 1979-2015 PE Gtoe & GDP T$2010 scale T$2010 log Gtoe PE GDP & GDP 2.85 %/a PE 1.85 %/a population 1.5 %/a
0,1 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 Jean Laherrere 19 Sept 2016 year
But there are three GDP: current, constant and PPP (purchase power parity) and they differ widely: it is why both should be displayed World GDP from WB 80
70 GDP current T$ WB
60 GDP T$2010 WB
50
40 GDP G$ GDP 30
20
10
0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Jean Laherrere Sept 2016 year
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
34 World GDP versus crude oil production 1960-2015 80
70 GDP current T$ WB
60 Expon. (GDP current T$ WB)
0,0035x 50 y = 1,5589e R² = 0,94129
40 GDP G$ GDP 30
20
10
0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Jean Laherrere March 2017 cumulative crude oil production Gb 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). World GDP $2010 versus crude oil production 1960-2015 80 y = 0,0524x + 4,3727 70 R² = 0,99044 GDP T$2010 WB
60 Linéaire (GDP T$2010 WB)
50
40
30 GDP G$2010 GDP
20
10
0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Jean Laherrere March 2017 cumulative crude oil production Gb
Dealing with constant dollar gives a completely different model than with current dollars
-page 47
35
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
36