I'm mainly interested in a fitting method and applying constraints. When I saw the shape of the data, it seemed to me that a narrow function with large amplitude might do something that looks a little like the recent data, and after reading Luis comment that a big field was tapped recently and seeing the video saying that the same field is in decline I thought a constraint that makes production from new fields faster than production from historic fields might have a physical motivation. I don't have a big stake in the idea that this might be predictive. I'm willing to accept Richard Gott's method of prediction. We've been using oil for about 80 years so there is about a 75% chance that we won't be using it in 240 years. And, I think that there is real predictive power in looking at the pattern of discoveries of oil fields. My comments, though, are more about trying a few things in fitting.

Chris

Let me parse one of the statements you make:

The terms used in the Logistic equation URR/Production rates are simply proxies for the underlying physical real logistic process of well creation death and loss of places to drill or carrying capacity.

You say the "terms used in the Logistic equation ... are simply proxies for the underlying physical real Logistic process". This reads like a tautology. Did you really mean to say this? Because when I read it, it looks like you are saying that the real physical process follows the Logistic equation.

But then you say this, in responding to me:

I'm not sure why your mapping the logistic equation back to oil itself I've not proposed this.

This statement completely contradicts your tautological statement preceding it. You, not I, are proposing this.