The Oil Drum

310 comments on DrumBeat: August 9, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Khebab on August 9, 2006 - 12:47pm

I don't understand the rounding value, by definition it should be around +/-1, why -25? it should not be called "rounding value" but "number added to get the URR we want"!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

yashko on August 9, 2006 - 1:08pm

Maybe the rounding number is "one-third of the increase in NGL's," or "approximately one standard deviation for our WAG on NGL's." I know Colin Campbell is trying to be helpful by including gas in his chart and calculations, but I think it is misleading-- we simply can't chart gas the same way we chart oil.

Who knows what amount of gas was flared in the past? A Hubbert linearization doesn't work for gas, and won't, imho, until we are about one-third of the way down the slope for gas. There is not the same time lag between discovery and production, or the same depletion rates. Just take the gas out of the chart, already, and go back to crude.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Comp Lex on August 9, 2006 - 3:57pm

What does work for gas?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

alan on August 9, 2006 - 2:46pm

Adding all the numbers is that column gives me 2525 Gb. I assume by rounding this number off he is acknowledging that his estimates should not be considered accurate to more than two significant figures.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.

“Where ideas are concerned, America can be counted on to do one of two things: take a good idea and run it completely into the ground, or take a bad idea and run it completely into the ground.”

—George Carlin