[DeTomaso] (NPC) politically incorrect global warming theory

[Kirby Schrader]

Ken,

Probably not measurable.... although some may claim it is and you  
could calculate _something_.
The main variable? How efficiently is each gallon/cubic foot of oil/ 
gas being changed into heat energy?
I don't think you can know, but you could always use a SWAG factor.  
Like the climatologists.

I work in the oil business. I have for 32 years. We have models. Lots  
of models. Models for everything!

Every one of them that I can think of works on a certain set of  
parameters and algorithms which intend to portray what's really  
happening. That's how models work. Even climate models.

I use a modeling program to calculate side loads, buckling loads,  
tension, drag, etc. in a completion string running into the ground.  
You _have_ to use this software to even get close to pulling off the  
so called horizontal 'smartwells' we're doing here in Brunei. World  
record breaking stuff.

But every time I use it, I have this something called 'friction  
factor' that I have to guess at. It's just a number pulled out of the  
sky (which admittedly has a limited range of possible practical  
values - anywhere from 0 to .6 or so) that lumps everything that you  
don't know into one big magical 'fudge factor'. But the difference  
between .25 and .28 can make all the difference in the world between  
a record breaker and a 'train wreck'.

Every model has these. Because every model is a guess.  Everyone of  
them can be made to 'fit' with judicious use of the computer and  
another guess, another fudge factor, etc.. An example the other day  
was that this reservoir engineer claimed he could get the mass  
balance curve to match if he just added an aquifer.
Everyone was elated! After all, this was an answer!!!! We could now  
explain why the pressure decline in the reservoir was not matching  
the total produced gas and oil!!!

The geologist said bullshit and showed why this could never be the  
case due to the shape of the reservoir and the geological conditions  
surrounding it which are shown by the seismic data. Which in itself  
is another model!

Yeah, cool software, neat algorithms, but completely wrong even  
though it matched. Of course, geologists are world renowned for  
changing their minds.  :-)

My theory as to why they don't match? Simple. Something as basic as -  
we aren't measuring what is produced correctly.
The data is wrong, but it's what we have, so therefore it must be  
correct! And we try to build a model around it.

An aviation guy was in Macao last May when we had an SPE Forum. When  
he saw the details of what we were doing in the oil business, he said  
"You guys are just using smoke and mirrors! And getting away with it!"
His point was that if he was test flying a new experimental aircraft,  
he could walk up to it, touch it, see it and get a feeling about it.  
He'd know what he was getting involved with.

In the oil business, you NEVER see what's down there other than what  
comes out. You measure, you guess and you think you have a good idea  
of what's happening, but I promise you.... You'll usually be surprised.

Nature has a way of throwing a new variable that you hadn't thought  
of until you try to figure out what can be happening. We're getting  
better, learning more and improving the models, but I can guarantee  
you that climate models are hundreds, if not thousands of times more  
complicated with many, many more variables.

By the time someone reckons they've figured out the reservoir model  
on a given oil field, the oil field has usually been plugged and  
abandoned.... too late.

Damn.... here I am on a soapbox again...

Now off.

FWIW,
Kirby




  (which a guy familiar
On 12 Feb, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Ken Green wrote:

> Kirby,
>
>       I have no idea if this is even measurable, but has anyone  
> looked at the amount of energy being released by burning the amount  
> of gas, oil, and coal we are using these days, and how much that  
> energy would raise the temperature of the atmosphere?
>
>       It's really sad that science has become another tool of the  
> politicians, but if you think about it, a scientist studying global  
> warming is not going to get his research grants extended if he  
> shows that there is no problem.
>
> Ken
>
> Kirby Schrader <kirby.schrader at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Chuck,
>
> Who was it that that said, 'There are lies, damned lies and  
> statistics"?
> Hmmm.... thought it was Mark Twain, but it seems even that isn't
> true....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_Damn_Lies,_and_Statistics
>
> Anyway, the whole global warming thing has so many variables, known
> and unknown, that it becomes something like predicting the economy.
> Or 'peak oil'. Or anything with humans as one of the variables.
> Add the sun and cosmic rays? Whew.... forget about it. You can't do
> anything except give it your best shot with the information you have
> available. And then watch your latest theory go to hell.
>
> Every engineer knows that _any_ theory can be proved or disproved by
> selective use of the facts!
>
> :-)
>
> Kirby
>
>
>
> On 12 Feb, 2007, at 7:49 AM, Charles Engles wrote:
>
> > Dear Forum,
> >
> > Included is a *very* interesting link for a fascinating
> > politically incorrect theory, with actual *science* behind it,
> > about global warming. Also: it ain't caused by 351C engines,
> > brothers.
> >
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
> >
> >
> > Warmest regards, Chuck Engles
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
> >
> > Archive Search Engine Now Available at http://www.realbig.com/
> > detomaso/
> >
> > DeTomaso mailing list
> > DeTomaso at realbig.com
> > http://ftl.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
> Archive Search Engine Now Available at http://www.realbig.com/ 
> detomaso/
>
> DeTomaso mailing list
> DeTomaso at realbig.com
> http://ftl.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>