axis 8

Sometimes I get a bit freaked out by the ferocity anddoggedness of the so-called global warming deniers. The latest outpostfor these contrarians. ,shows lots of activity with much gnashing over numbers and statistics,with the end result that they get a science blog of the year award (). Fortunately the blog remains open to commenting from both sides of theGW argument which if nothing else makes it a worthy candidate for sometype of award. Even though I don't agree with the nitpicking approachof the auditors they do provide peer review for strengthening one'sarguments and theories. I can only hope that on oil depletion modeling attracts the same ferocityfrom the peak oil deniers out there. Unfortunately we don't have acomplementary "oil depletion audit" site organizedyet (though Stuart and Khebab et al seem to be working on it--seeyesterday's post) so we have to rely on the devil's advocates on TODto attempt to rip my Application of the Dispersive DiscoveryModel to shreds. Not required but see my previouspost to prime your pump. I start with one potentially contentious statement: roughly summarizedas "big oil reserves are NOT necessarily found first". I find this rather important in terms of the recent work that and have posted. As Khebab notes "almost half of theworld production is coming from less than 3% of the total number ofoilfields". So the intriguing notion remains whendo these big oil finds occur and can our rather limited understandingof the discovery dynamics provide the that the PO denialistshope for? For a moment putting on the hat of a denier onecould argue that we have no knowledge as to whether we have found allthe super-giants and that a number of these potentially remain,silently lurking in the shadows and just waiting to get discovered. From the looks of it the USGS has some statistical confidence thatthese exist and can make a substantial contribution to future reserves. Khebab has done with the potential for large outliers -- occurring primarily from thelarge variance in field sizes provided by the empirically observed. But this goes against some of the arguments I have seen on TODwhich revolve around some intuitive notions and conventional wisdom ofalways finding big things first. Much like the impossibility ofignoring the elephant in the room the logical person would infer thatof course we would find big things first. This argument hasperhaps tangential scientific principles behind it mainly inmathematical strategies for dealing with what physicists callscattering cross-sections and the like. Scientifically based or not. Ithink people basically latch on to this idea without much thought. But I have still have problems with the conventionalcontention primarily in understanding what would cause us to uniformlyfind big oil fields first. On the one hand and in historic terms,early oil prospectors had no way of seeing everything under the earth;after all you can only discover what you can see (another bit ofconventional wisdom). So this would imply as we probe deeperand cast a wider net we still have a significant chance of discoveringlarge oil deposits. After all the mantle of the earth remains a ratherlarge volume. On the the same hand the data does not convincingly back upthe early discovery model. Khebab's comment section noted the work of. Mr. Robelius dedicated graduate thesis work to tabulating the portionof discoveries due to super-giants and it does in fact appear to skewto earlier years than the overall discovery data. However nothingabout the numbers of giant oil fieldsfound appears skewed about the peak as shown in Figure 2below: As is typical of discovery data. I do spot someinconsistencies in the chart as well. I superimposed a chart provide of total discoveries due to ASPOon top of the Robelius data and it appears we have an inversion or two(giants > total in the 1920's and 1930's). Another graph fromunknown origins (Figure 3) has the same 62% numberthat Robelius quotes for big oil contribution. Note that the number ofgiants before 1930 probably all gets lumped at 1930. It stilllooks inconclusive whether a substantial number of giants occurredearlier or whether we can attach any statistical significance to thedistribution. The controversial "BOE" discovery data provided by Shelloffers up other supporting evidence for a more uniform distribution ofbig finds. As one can see in Figure 4 due to someclearly marked big discoveries in the spikes at 1970 and 1990 theoverall discovery ordering looks a bit more stationary. Unfortunately. I have a feeling that the big finds marked come aboutfrom unconventional sources. Thus you begin to understand themore-or-less truthful BOE="barrel of oil equivalent" in small letteringon the y-axis (wink wink). And I really don't understand what their"Stochastic simulation" amounts to -- a simple moving average perhaps?--- Shell Oil apparently doesn't have to disclose their methods (wink,wink wink). Given the rather inconclusive evidence. I contend that I canmake a good conservative assumption that the size of discoveriesremains a stationary property of any oil discovery model. This has somebenefits in that the conservative nature will suppress the pessimisticrange of predictions leading to a best-case estimate for thefuture. Cornucopians say that we will still find bigreservoirs of oil somewhere. Pessimists say that historically we havealways found the big ones early. In general the premise assumes no bias in terms of when wefind big oil in other words we have equal probability of finding a bigone at any one time. For my model of oil depletion I intentionally separate the DiscoveryModel from the Production Model. This differs from theunitarians who claim that a single equation albeit a heuristic onesuch as the Logistic can effectively model the dynamics ofoil depletion. From my point-of-view the discovery process remainsorthogonal to the subsequent extraction/production process and thatthe discovery dynamics acts as a completely independent stimulus todrive the production model. I contend that the two convolvedtogether give us a complete picture of the global oil depletion process. I borrowed the term dispersion for the name of to concisely describe the origin of its derivation. In the naturalworld dispersion comes about from a range of rates or properties thataffect the propagation of some signal or material (see the animated GIFin Figure 5). In terms of oil discoverydispersion. I model physical discovery as a maximum entropy range ofrates that get applied to a set of exploratory processes. Some of theseproceed slowly others more quickly while the aggregate showsdispersion. This dispersion becomes most evident on the far side of thediscovery peak. I maintain that the gist of the idea remains remarkablysimple but still have not found any other references to somethingsimilar to. As for the Production Model. I continue to stand by the as a valid pairing tothe Dispersive Discovery model. The Shock Model will take asa forcing function basically any discovery data including real dataor more importantly a model of discovery. The latter allows us tomake the critical step in using the Shock Model for predictivepurposes. Without the extrapolated discovery data that a model willprovide the Shock Model peters out with an abrupt end to forcing data,which usually ends up at present time (with no reserve growth factorincluded). As for the main premise behind the Shock Model think in termsof rates acting on volumes of found material. To 1 -order,the depletion of a valuable commodity scales proportionately to theamount of that commodity on hand. Because of the stages that oil goesthrough as it starts from a fallow just-discovered reservoir one canapply the Markov-rate law through each of the stages. The OilShock Model essential acts as a 4 -order lowpass filter and removes much of the fluctuations introduced by a noisydiscovery process (see next section). The "Shock" portioncomes about from perturbations applied to the last stage of extraction,which we can use to model instantaneous socio-politicalevents. I know the basic idea behind the Oil Shock Model hasat least some ancestry; take a look at "compartmental models" forsimilar concepts although I don't think anyone has seriously appliedit to fossil fuel production and nothing yet AFAIK in terms of the"shock" portion (Khebab has since applied it to a ). When I developed the ,I lacked direct evidence for the time-invariant evolution of thecumulative growth component. The derivation basically followed twostages : (1) a stochastic spatial sampling that generated a cumulativegrowth curve and (2) an empirical observation as to how sampling sizeevolves with time with the best fit assuming a power-law with time. Sowith the readily available and actually staring me in the face for some time from none other than Mr. Hubbert himself. I decided to deal with it (hattip to Jerry McManus who contributed an interesting bit of data to a. He dug the chart in Figure 6out of an old Hubbert article from some librarystacks showing a histogram of USA discoveries plotted againstcumulative drilled footage). If nothing else. Ibelieve a set of intermediate results further substantiates thevalidity of themodel. In effect the stage-1 part of the derivation benefits from a"show your work" objective evaluation which strengthens the confidencelevel of the final result. Lacking a better analogy. I would similarlyfeel queasy if I tried to explain why rain regularly occurs if I couldnot simultaneously demonstrate the role of evaporation in the weathercycle. And so it goes with the oil discovery life-cycle and arguablyany other complex behavior. The shape of the curve that Jerry found due to Hubbert has thecharacteristic of a cumulative dispersive swept region in which weremove the time dependent growth term retaining the strictly linearmapping needed for the histogram see the term has significance in terms of aneffective URR as I described in the. I eyeballed the scaling as k=0.7e9 and c=250 so Iget 175 instead of the 172 that Hubbert got. To expand in a bit more detail the basic parts of the derivation thatwe can substantiate involve the L-bar calculationin the equations in Figure 9 below (): The key terms include lambda which indicatescumulative footage and the L-bar,which denotes an average cross-section for discovery for thatparticular cumulative footage. This represents Stage-1 of thecalculation -- which I never verified with data before -- while thelast lines labeled "Linear Growth" and "Parabolic Growth" provideexamples of modeling the Stage-2 temporal evolution. Since the results come out naturally in terms of cumulative discovery,it helps to integrate Hubbert's yearly discovery curves. So Figure10below shows the cumulative fit paired with the yearly (the former is anintegral of the latter): I did a least-squares fit to the curve that I and the discovery asymptote increased from my estimated 175 to 177. I've found that generally accepted values for this USA discovery URRranges up to 195 billion barrels in the 30 years since Hubbertpublished this data. This in my opinion indicates that the model haspotential for good predictive power. Hubbert originally plotted yearly discoveries per cumulative footagedrilledfor both oil and natural gas. I also found a curve for Natural Gas at (Figure 11). Interesting that if we fitthe cumulative discovery data to the naive exponential the curve seemstomatch very well on the upslope (see Figure 12below) but that the asymptotearrives way too early obviously missing all the dispersed discoveriescovered by the alternative model. The dispersive discovery adds a good20% extra reaching an asymptote of 1130 coming much closer to thevalue from NETL of 1190 (see footnote Although a bit unwieldy one can linearize the dispersive discoverycurves,similar to what the TOD oil analysts do with Hubbert Linearization. InFigure 13 although itswings wildly initially. I can easily see the linear agreement with acorrelation coefficient very nearly one and a near zero extrapolatedy-intercept. (note that the naive exponential that Hubbert used in Figure11 for NG overshoots thefit to better match the asymptote but still falls short of thealternative model's asymptote and which also fits the bulk ofthe data points much better) Every bit of data tends to corroborate that the dispersive discoverymodel works quite effectively in both providing an understanding on howwe actually make discoveries in a reserve growth fashion and inmathematically describing the real data. So at a subjective level you can see that the cumulative ultimatelyshowsthe model's strengths both from the perspective of the generally goodfit for a 2-parameter model (asymptotic value + cross sectionefficiency of discovery) but also in terms of the creeping reservegrowth which does not flatten out as quickly as the exponential does. This slow apparent reserve growth matches empirical-realityremarkablywell. In contrast the quality of Hubbert's exponential fit appears wayoff when plotted in the cumulative discovery profile only crossing ata few points and reaching an asymptote well before the dispersive modeldoes. But what also intrigued me is the origin of noise in thediscovery data and how the effects of super fields would affect themodel. You can see the noise in the cumulative plots fromHubbert above (see Figures 6 & 11 eventhough these also have a heavy histogram filter applied) and alsoparticularly in the discovery charts from Laherrere in Figure14 below. If you consider that the number of significant oil discoveries runs inthe thousands according to The Pyramid (Figure 1),you would think that noise would abate substantially and the law oflarge numbers would start to take over. Alas that does not happen andlarge fluctuations persist primarily because of the large variancecharacteristic of a log-normal size distribution. See for some extra insightinto how to apply the log-normal and also for what I see as a fatalflaw in the USGS interpretation that the log-normal distributionnecessarily leads to a huge uncertainty in cumulative discovery in theend. From everything I have experimented with the fluctuations doaverage out in the cumulative sense if you have adispersive model underlying the analysis of which the USGSunfortunately leave out. The following pseudo-code maps out the Monte Carlo algorithm Iused to generate statistics (this uses the standard trick for and a more detailed one forinverting the Erf() which results from thecumulative Log-Normal distribution). This algorithm draws onthe initial premise that fluctuations in discovering is basically astationary process and remains the same over the duration ofdiscovery. L0ceiling. This generates an asymptote similar to a URR. Otherwise youwill find discoveries within the mean depth multiplied by the randomvariable probe. H*Lambda,below. This gives you a general idea of how to do a stochastic integration. Remember,we only have an average idea of what probe depth we have which givesus the dispersion on the amount discovered. 1 for Count in 1.. Num_Paths loop Lambda (Count) := -Log (Rand); end loop;2 while H < Depth loop H := H + 1.0; Discovered := 0;3 for Count in 1.. Num_Paths loop4 if H *Lambda(Count) < L0 then5 LogN := exp(Sigma*Inv(Rand))/exp(Sigma*Sigma/2.0);6 Discovered := Discovered + Lambda(Count) * LogN; end if; end loop;7 -- Print H + Discovered/Depth orCumulative Discoveries end loop; For both a uniform size distribution and exponential damped sizedistribution the noise remains small for sample sets of 10,000dispersive paths. However by adding a log-normal sizedistribution with a large variance (log-sigma=3) the severefluctuations become apparent for both the cumulative depth dynamics andparticularly for the yearly discovery dynamics. This. I think reallyexplains why Laherrere and other oil-depletion analysts like to put therunning average on the discovery profiles. I say leave the noise inthere as i contend that it tells us a lot about the statistics ofdiscovery. Figure 22: Dispersive Discovery Model assuming exponentiallydamped size distribution. The exponential has a much narrower variancethan the log-normal. The differences between the published discovery curves result primarilyfrom differentamounts of filtering. The one at the top of this post (Figure 2)which combines data from Robelius and a chart by Gail the Actuaryobviously sums up cumulatively for eachdecade which definitely reduces the overall fluctuations. However theone from Shell appears to have a fairly severe lagged moving average,resulting in the discoverypeak shifting right quite a bit. The in Figure 23 showslittle by way offiltering and includes superimposed backdating results. Figure24 hasa which I believecame from the unfiltered curve due to Laherrere shown in Figure14. I figure instead of filtering the data via moving averages it mightmake more sense to combine discovery data from different sources anduse that as a noise reduction/averaging technique. Ideally I would alsolike to use a cumulative but that suffers a bit from not having anypre-1900 discovery data. In Figure 2. I overlaid a Dispersive Discovery fitto the data. In this section of the post. I explain the rational forthe parameter selection and point out a flaw in my original assumptionwhen I first tried to fit the Oil Shock Model. Jean Laherrere of ASPO France last year presented a paper entitled. A TOD commenter had pointed out thefollowing figures from Pp.58 and 59: I eventually put two and two together and realized that the portion of the data really hadlittle to do with typical crude oil discoveries; as finding oil onlyoccasionally coincides with natural gas discoveries as he always references the Shock Oil model withthe caption "Crude Oil + NGL". Taking the hint. I refit the shock modelto better represent the lower peak of crude-only production data. Thisessentially scales back the peak by about 10% as shown in the secondfigure above. I claim a mixture of ignorance and sloppythinking for overlooking this rather clear error. So I restarted with the assumption that the discoveries comprised onlycrude oil and any NGL would come from separate natural gasdiscoveries. This meant that that I could use the same discovery modelon discovery data but needed to reduce the overcompensation onextraction rate to remove the "phantom" NGL production that crept intothe oil shock production profile. This essentially will defer the peakbecause of the decreased extractive force on the discovered reserves. I fit the discovery plot by Laherrere to the dispersive discovery modelwith a cumulative limit of 2800 GB and a cubic-quadratic rate of 0.01(i e n=6 for the power-law). This gives the blue line in Figure27 below. As a bottom-line this estimate fits in between the that I produced a couple of years ago andthe that used a model of the perhaps moreoptimistic Shell discovery data from earlier this year. I now haveconfidence that the discovery data by Shell which Khebab had cruciallyobserved had the cryptic scale "boe"(i e barrels of oil equivalent) should probablybetter represent the total Crude Oil + NGL production profile. Thus wehave the following set of models that I alternately take blame for (theoriginal mismatched model) and now dare to take credit for (the lattertwo). I still find it endlessly fascinating how the peak position of themodels do not show the huge sensitivity to changes that one wouldexpect with the large differences in the underlying URR. When it comesdown to it shifts of a few years don't mean much in the greater schemeof things. However how we conserve and transition on the backside willmake all the difference in the world. In the comments section to the post. Khebab. As the model should scale fromglobal down to distinct regions these kinds of analyses provide a goodtest to the validity of the model. In particular. Khebab concentrated on the data near the peak positionto ostensibly try to figure out the potential effects of reserve growthon reported discoveries. He generated a very interesting preliminaryresult which deserves careful consideration (if Khebab does not pursuethis further. I definitely will). In any case it definitely got megoing to investigate data from some fresh perspectives. For one. Ibelieve that the Dispersive Discovery model will prove useful forunderstanding reserve growth on individual reservoirs as theuncertainty in explored volume plays in much the same way as it does ona larger scale. In fact I originally proposed a dispersion analysis ona much smaller scale (calling it ) before Iapplied it to USA and global discoveries. As another example after grinding away for awhile on the available USAproduction and discovery data. I noticed that over the larger range ofUSA discoveries i e inferring from production back to 1859 thegeneral profile for yearly discoveries would notaffect the production profile that much on a semi-log plot. The shockmodel extraction model to first order shifts the discovery curve andbroadens/scales the peak shape a bit -- something fairly wellunderstood if you consider that the shock model acts like aphase-shifting IIR filter. So on a whim and figuring that we may havea good empirical result. I tried fitting the USA productiondata to the dispersive discovery model bypassingthe shock model response. I used the which extends back to 1859 and tothe first recorded production out of Titusville. PA of 2000 barrels (forhistorical time-line). I plotted this in Figure 29on a semi-log plot to cover the substantial dynamic range in the data. I find this result very intriguing because with just a few parameters,we can effectively fit the range of oil production over 3 orders ofmagnitude hit the peak position produce an arguable t_0 (thanksKhebab for this insight) and actually generate a predictive down-slopefor the out-years. Even the only point that doesn't fit on the curve,the initial year's data from Drake's well figures somewhere in theballpark considering this strike arose from a purely discrete anddeterministic draw (see the Monte Carlo simulations above) from thelarger context of a stochastic model. (I nicked Figure 30off of an look at the date of the reference!)Stuart Staniford of TOD originally tried to fit the USA curve on a and had some arguable success with a Gaussian fit. Overthe dynamic range it fit much better than a logistic butunfortunately did not nail the peak position and didn't appear topredict future production. The gaussian also did not make much senseapart from some hand-wavy central limit theorem considerations. Even before Staniford and perhaps mistakenly saw anexponential increase in production from a portion of the curve --something that I would consider a coincidental flat part in thepower-law growth curve. "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable" by NassimNicholas Taleb. The discovery of a black swan occurred in Australia,which no one had really explored up to that point. The idea that hugenumbers of large oil reservoirs could still get discovered presents anoptical illusion of sorts. The unlikely possibility of a huge new findhasn't as muchto do with intuition as to do with the fact that we have probed muchof the potential volume. And the maximum number number of finds occurat the peak of thedispersively swept volume. So the possibility of finding aBlack Swan becomes more and more remote after we explore everything onearth. Fig. 5 Average discoveries of crudeoil per lootlor each 100 million feet of exploratory drilling in the U. S. 48 statesand adjacent continental shelves. Adapted by Howard L. Baumann ofFishing Facts Magazine from Hubbert 1971 report to U. S. SenateCommittee. "U. S. Energy Resources. A Review As Of 1972." Part I. ABackground Paper prepared at the request of Henry M. Jackson. Chairman:Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. United States Senate. June1974. Fig.6 Estimation of ultimate total crude oilproduction for the U. S. 48 states and adjacent continental shelves; bycomparing actual discovery rates of crude oil per foot of exploratorydrilling against the cumulative total footage of exploratory drilling. A comparison is also shown with the U. S. Geol. Survey (Zapp Hypothesis)estimate. U. S natural gas produced to date (990 Tcf) andprovedreserves currently being targeted by producers (183 Tcf) are just thetip of resources in place. Vast technically recoverable resources exist-- estimated at 1,400 trillion cubic feet -- yet most are currently tooexpensive to produce. This category includes deep gas tight gas in lowpermeability sandstone formations coal bed natural gas and gasshales. In addition methane hydrates represent enormous futurepotential estimated at 200,000 trillion cubic feet. This together with the following reference indicate thecurrent estimate of NG reserves lies between 1173 and 1190 TCF (TerraCubic Foot = 10 )--------------------------------------- -----------------------------Non associated undiscovered gas 247.71 Old fields 305Inferred reserves 232.70 New fields 847Unconventional gas recovery 369.59 Unconventional 428Associated-dissolved gas 140.89 Alaskan gas 32.32 Alaskan gas (old fields) 32Proved reserves 167.41 Proved reserves 167Total Natural Gas 1190.62 Total Natural Gas 1779 I'll repeat a statement made a few times before. If you want to use maths to predict/understand oil production/discoveries etc then you need to explicitly 'reverse out' the impact of political and economic decisions. Its no good trying to model areas such as new discoveries if you haven't taken into account the times when countries and oil companies "couldn't be bothered" to search exhaustively since they already had more reserves than they knew what to do with. Equally if there is a recession and share price is troubled oil companies will reduce the cost base and limit their exploration. Trying to match maths to this noisy data with all these effects still in place artificially limits what you can understand. We KNOW when the recessions were when the shocks occurred etc. - so its possible to make allowance for them. Model on the cleaned up data then add back in the real world effects and you can generate a tool that you can use to predict the 'perfect' world performance and then add in your expected or observed real world events as they happen - essentially playing 'what if' scenarios. Frankly. I look a little askew at a model that claims to accurately model the real world data without the taking account of the real world noise. It doesn't pass the sniff test. I think the model has a lot of potential and cleaning the real world data would also have it's consequences just as WHT points out. There have already been other methods using various ways of trying to average out the noise perhaps introducing additional skew to the data for future extrapolation. However in an ideal scenario. I think your point about trying to achieve 'perfect world' scenario is a good one. BTW great work WHT. Even a person like me who's getting back to physics/maths after at 15+ hiatus could follow the main gist of the article much of the time. That is quite remarkable communication and explanation powers you have! Well if you take the global oil production curve and work out the offsets translations and stretching necessary to turn that shape into a smooth bell curve unconstrained consumption theory predicts - you can readily see how the effects I describe can have a key impact on production data. Its not a big step to suggest the effect is equivalent or greater in other areas. Your points may have validity which might be checked by doing a sensitivity analysis but one needs to start with a model and the simplier the better. With a model in hand one can introduce factors as you mention and see how the model results deviate from the data. You can't reject the model as insignificant when you don't know how it responds to the input you suggest. I understand your point. The step changes I think are very deterministic and happen at the last stage of the process which is why I call them shocks. Everything else about the model is stochastic (one could argue about the power-law growth term but everything has to have a driving force). So if I could divine what the extractive step changes are preferably from some real world source like corporate records or OPEC dictates. I certainly would be more satisfied. Apart from that having a reasonable set of dimensional parameters that derive from some simple physical models helps to fill in the rest of the puzzle. But surely you first need to know what will happen if politics is ignored? In this case the politics is a response to the inexorable mathematics of the situation so you need to establish the mathematically "perfect" situation first. The politics then changes the situation but to understand what the politics will do we need to first understand what happens without politics. And don't forget that it's possible to go back to mature fields and use techniques like streamline simulation to figure out where to drill production and injection wells to recover more oil... Prof. Akhil Datta-Gupta of Texas A&M University predicts that using this method there are 200 billion barrels that are economically recoverable from mature fields in the Continental US alone. He's recently published a book which includes a CDROM with streamline simulation software (and perhaps source code...): (from )Streamline Simulation Author: Akhil Datta-Gupta and Michael J. King Format: Softcover Pages: 394 ISBN: 978-1-55563-111-6 Publisher: Society of Petroleum Engineers Year Published: 2007 Item Number: 100-1842 Streamline Simulation: Theory and Practice provides a systematic exposition of current streamline simulation technology—its foundations historical precedents applications field studies and limitations. This textbook emphasizes the unique features of streamline technology that in many ways complement conventional finite-difference simulation. The book should appeal to a broad audience in petroleum engineering and hydrogeology; it has been designed for use by undergraduate and graduate students current practitioners educators and researchers. Included in the book is a CD with a working streamline simulator and exercises to provide the reader with hands-on experience with the technology. Contents: Introduction and Overview • Basic Governing Equations • Streamlines. Streamtubes. Streamfunctions and Simulation • Applications: Field Studies and Case Histories • Transport Along Streamlines • Spatial Discretization and Material Balance • Timestepping and Transverse Fluxes • Streamline Tracing in Complex Cell Geometries • Advanced Topics: Fluid Flow in Fractured Reservoirs and Compositional Simulation • Streamline-Based History Matching and the Integration of Production Data Yet I think you forget that any lapses in exhaustive searches by well-fed companies are more than taken up by hungry newcomers on the scene. Where there is money to be made people will contribute to the gold rush. And greed is the essential driving force which has to first-order never been known to abate in the history of mankind. Even at the lowest point in the value of oil it would still be worth a fortune for the fortunate prospector. I also think I have taken into account noise and uncertainty by the dispersive model itself. And the oil shock model adds another level of uncertainty up to the point that shocks are used to model the step changes you talk about. The interesting thing is that this mathematical relationship is found in many other seemingly unrelated parts of our world. For example internet use has been found to fit power law distributions. There is a small number of websites that attract an extremely large number of hits (e g. Microsoft. Google eBay). Next there is a medium number of websites with a medium level of hits and finally literally many millions of sites like my own that only attract a few hits. The number of species and how abundant each one is in a given area of land also fits a power law. There will be a few species that are very abundant a medium sized number of medium abundance and many species that are not very abundant." "This supports the old adage that money makes money and the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. The longer the interactions continue and the more people who join in the more striking will be the difference between rich and poor. This also links to the principle of Chaos Theory that such systems are very dependent on initial conditions. A small advantage at the beginning is far more likely to result in a high ranking than a small advantage later on when other agents have already gained significant advantages. As someone who has lived with water restrictions for 20 years in Florida. I am stunned by the stupidity and selfishness of Georgia and Atlanta's public leadership. To know that there is a problem and willfully ignore it because of a faith based upon the availability of resources at some point in the future is at best reckless. Further a complete lack of growth planning in the Atlanta area is only making the problems worse. Seems that the "free market" cannot solve all problems. Of course. Georgia's answer is to screw north Florida and Alabama so they can continue to water their lawns on a daily basis. I think this statement is wrong and needs to be qualified with a geographic / geologic scale. If you look at at any basin. I'm pretty sure you'll see that the majority of the giants are front loaded. Certainly the case in the North Sea with Ekofisk. Statfjord. Brent. Forties et al. all discovered early in the cycle. There is a reason for this and that is large oil companies go out looking for large fields - elephants no less. So if the statement you make is true for the Earth that is because we have sequentially explored the World's basins - resulting in giant discoveries being spread throughout the 20th century. The point now being that we are fast running out of new basins to explore. So I think you will find that the vast majority of giants were found in the 20th Century - even though much of their oil will be produced in the 21st. If it can be shown that a minimal set of assumptions all of which can be backed by hard evidence and clear logic lead to the same conclusion the general case is easier to understand. I think I tried to make the same point in the post. By not assuming that big oil discoveries are always found first you get a very conservative and unbiased model which if anything will defer discoveries to the future and thus provide a more optimistic estimate of decline. But even with this extra optimism in the greater scheme of things it doesn't help that much. To interpret and answer the last question. I think the minimal assumptions are that the human search function is monotonically increasing in rate (i e people try harder and harder over time) a finite volume is searched and that a dispersion in rates takes over to demonstrate the decline as the various searches overlap the extents of the finite volume. That would be entirely correct but fact remains that for the last 15 years oil research investments have been very very low for there were no economic value in such. Thus we can say what you said but because in a simple model. Oil price should rise steadily since it was first found. It is not such. When price shocked the world search multiplied investments multiplied. The results were a boom in the oil reserves profile (not counting in OPEC findings). But price collapsed and such investment ended. Don't get me wrong. I'm not with the economists all way down. Thing is if Money is somehow a function of "search" then we should conclude that there has been very low search because there was no economic incentive. Given lag times. I wonder if such an investment graph could be plotted against findings and oil prices and so on to give a better picture. It would be rather strange if there wasn't a link between these variables. This aligns with the discovery of the Middle East oil fields. I assume a similar search was taking place in the Soviet Union at about the same time. Offshore region where searched somewhat later. Basically as geopolitical/economic factors became aligned and a region was opened to searching for oil it was searched fairly throughly. My point is simply that discovery seems to follow the ability to search a region. Outside of this surge in a sense in the 1950-1960 time frame searching has been fairly consistent also this surge is probably a artifact of WWII. What I think we would need is a historical view of how the world was searched for oil. I think you will find although different regions where searched at different times the overall search was exhaustive this dispersive model works simply because we know that a finite search has been basically completed. Later during the post 1970 and later periods. Yes we had price issues but also by that point the places to look for oil where limited. Put it this way even if oil dropped to 5 dollars a barrel if the Middle East happened to come open for searching at that point we probably would have searched it. Oil was not particularly expensive when we searched the Middle East. Until very recently oil has in general been highly profitable at any price. National Oil companies that use the oil profits to finance the government are built on effectively outsize profits but simple extraction costs vs prices have always been very favorable in general. I'm not actually aware of a time when oil extraction did not provide healthy returns in general. If anything because of this we discovered most of the worlds oil well before we needed it. Simple shifting of the discovery curve by twenty years with a peak in discovery around 1965-1970 puts peak potential capacity around 1980-2000. So in my opinion greedy discovery model eventually resulted in a oil glut. If discovery and production where expensive vs profits then we would have probably seen a lot different discovery model. A historical comparative would have been the flood of gold from the new world. It eventually caused a lot of problems in Spain. As the oil fields discoveries tend to become smaller and more difficult to exploit so the engineering resource and capital required to realise them increases and their nett energy and profitability diminishes. Since the engineering resource and supply base (as documented by Simmons and abundantly apparent in my day to day work) is inadequate to maintain the current workload which is barely offsetting the initial decline rates of the giant fields the chances of increasing output is constrained beyond the geological limits primarily considered here. This is a fundamentally important point. And one which TOD needs to do some research on. Namely to what extent and at what rate can new engineering and trained human assets be created to tackle this problem? This is connected to comments made by Memmel and Grey Zone relating to a form of the law of diminishing returns whereby existing engineering assests are being used to develop producing assets that lack durability - hence a tread mill has been created. So with a refining search algorithm the distribution of discoveries is controlled by the time interval spent searching. Given this the reason that discoveries where happening in the 1950's-1960's has a lot more to do with the fact that the world was in general open to searching at this point in time. If WWII had not happened we probably would have made the discoveries earlier. So a fairly basic factor that seems to be missing is discoveries vs when we looked. If you don't look for oil you won't find it. If you do esp with technical progress you do. Now on the search side you do have a similar treadmill to production and it starts when you get very good at searching yet discoveries drop. As long as searching as fairly unconstrained then regardless of technical progress your pretty much assured that the result will be diminishing returns over time. Look at it another way the exact oil distribution and geologic rules for its distribution could have been quite different as long as its economically lucrative to find oil and we are capable of increasing our ability to find it we will discover the distribution. The nature of the distribution is not relevant. So lets say we have a region with a lot of fairly small fields and one with a large and satellite fields. Given what I'm saying then we would have found all the oil in both regions in the same amount of time. So we can quickly discover the nature of the oil distribution in a region when we look. The exact nature of the distribution is what it is and has no bearing on the discovery process. A way to look at this is we could have taken the geology of the middle east and rearranged it like a puzzle Ghawar could be moved to say Iran or broken into multiple fields. Once we start looking it does not matter how the oil is distributed we will find all of it. Euan. sometimes I feel like a good argument too. If it were not so difficult for me to write I might find more pleasure in the argument just for the sake of argument. If I roll a six (6) sided die at Vegas at the craps table and 100 times in sucession a number two (2) shows up I would still have odds of one in six for any resolution no matter the history. Probabilities remain constant. So with regard to the possibility that recoverable reserves or economically feasible petroleum recovery takes place... do we not need yet another definition? I remember Khebabs great work sometime ago regarding feild distribution. This I think is the kind of work and effort that will save the bacon of us all as we continue down the reverse of the slope or along the plateau. I regard this type of effort brought to the critical eye of experts like yourself Khebab. Stuart Staniford and West Texas just to name a few as important. June 2006 I commented on Khebab's effort"Khebab. Great work and laud you for it.... I would however proffer that perhaps the distribution of feilds in relation to one another may prove the math more effectively if one did not use arbitriary borders such as SA and used rather linner geographical distance instead. For example to answer the following interrogative: How many feilds and what size of (X) Km of a givin Elephant... distribution should be limited by distance not an arbitriary political boundry. Very well done and please continue the great work.. regards TG80 sends"Khebab responded. Thanks for the kind words! you're right about the geographical boundaries. That's why the USGS is using a different system of geological units called TPS (see here ). I am very confident that between this article and Khebabs work we may be able to confidently "sus-out" the applicability of this model for discovery of yet uncharted feilds. Regards TG80 sends I know what your saying but would tend to disagree pretty strongly here. If you rolled 100 twos. I'd tend to conclude that the dice was loaded and on this basis would not bet on a 1 in six chance on the 101 st roll of the dice. To extend your analogy to oil exploration then you might imagine a situation where you are only given 110 rolls of the dice - since we are living on a finite planet. If you have already rolled 100 twos - then there will be no possibility of ending up with a probabilistic distribution after 110 roles. I get your point about using linear as opposed to political / geographic boudaries but in fact would argue in favour of using a petroleum system / basin approach - since it is petroleum systems that define the distribution of oil on Earth. So what about the last 20 years? And if this trend were to continue for another 50 years which petroleum sytems should we be targeting - I'm sure BP. Shell and Exxon would like to know. I think it would be interesting to see this chart without the random reference line - the actual line looks like it may be sigmoidal - it starts below and ends above the random curve. Euan. I agree about wanting to see a more sigmoidal shape. I would suggest that to show the least amount of bias it should at least show a power-law growth as my assumption is that search effort accelerates over time. So to linearly find big discoveries over time even with an accelerating human effort means that we in fact are getting lucky finding the big ones earlier. (imagine trying to bend a parabola into a straight line by scaling the initial points) But then again maybe it doesn't matter that much because dispersive discovery is a conservative and therefore optimistic model. Are my eyes just fooling me or is that actual curve a little bit "S" shaped with a slight bias to smaller fields early and a bias to larger fields later? Might there be anything to that? Maybe the basis for a hypothesis that more of the globe became accessible later + better technology & knowledge leading to better results on the large size? Thats the discovery and charting of all the continents and islands in the world. This finally closed with the invention of the satellite. Also the distribution of land is not all that different from oil. I contend to controlling factor was sending out searchers not the actual distribution of land. Just as the age of discovery occurred when a combination of factors made it technically possible and lucrative to discover and control new land we have the same overall case for oil. Khebab an interesting question would be to look at the discovery of regions and then the discovery of fields within the region. I am going to speculate here and posit that regions/basins are discovered due to non-geologic forces - economics population growth politics etc. Further. I would speculate that these things are cyclical primarily because for most of the last 150 years the economy itself has been cyclical. Given the above assumptions. I would love to see whether the discoveries of large fields correlate to the discovery of the general basin in which they lay or not and then whether the lesser fields fall out progressively down the timeline. Unfortunately. I have no idea where to find that data and am swamped at work at the moment anyway. However it may very well turn out that for individual regions the discovery of the large fields first generally holds true. If this is the case then the question becomes what possible basins remain to be explored (and therefore discovered)? Heck even without assuming that we can still ask the question of which large potential basins remain unexplored. I suspect the answer to that question will not be heartening to most. There is a reason for this and that is large oil companies go out looking for large fields - elephants no less. Ahh but they could have coincidentally discovered many small fields first put the findings in their back pocket and continued to search for bigger fields. Yet this does not mean that they get discovered later only produced later. I have that taken into account by the Oil Shock model where a distribution of Fallow times is allowed. The Fallow distribution spreads out the start of production maturation times via a mean and a standard deviation equal to the mean. This effectively allows a spread of start times and models exactly what you are referring to. Greed must play into this. Can you imagine finding a pot of gold in your backyard? Would you grab what you had and go live the rest of you life in Fiji? Or would you continue looking in the rest of the yard to try to multiply your success? Excellent post. WHT. Has publication written all over it. Starting to go through your earlier work and confused about Lo and what assumptions are made in going from a single reservoir to a US- or world-averaged value as well as going from a swept sampling volume to a cumulative sampling footage. Will formulate a question(s) after more reading but that may take a day or more. But in Fig 10 why only plot Hubbert's data from figs. 6,8? Isn't there more recent data for quantity of oil vs cumulative drilled footage for US-48. This would tend to confirm your dispersive model out at the high end of footage which is where we are now. and other names elsewhere. It could have the dimensions of depth or volume. I can make some dimensional arguments about why it really doesn't matter but that the main thing is that it indicates a finite extent of some space. I debated about including a related idea in the post which was that instead of thinking about dispersing the rates at which the swept volume expands one could also disperse the finite extents of various volumes that regions of the world are explored within. This essentially gives the same result which is a standard trick of dimensional analysis. (both of these could be dispersed as well i e both rates and extents but then a closed-form solution is beyond my means at the moment) I also think that is why the Monte Carlo idea is effective for substantiation of the closed-form solution. If someone wants to try different dispersal strategies or growth laws they can. Just come up with different constraint volumes and modify the algorithm. You should come up with the same shape and then you can use the affine scaling properties of the equation in Figure 9 to not have to use MC for that class of problems. You managed to unify the following observations:- reserve growth through a parabolic model.- fractal field size distribution using the log-normal pdf.- Hubbert result on volume discovered versus cumulative footage.- oil production through dispersive and time-shifting convolutions of the original discovered volumes. What I particularly like is that your approach is based on a modelization of the underlying physical processes. The result on reserve growth is interesting because it does not lead to infinite reserve growth. Empirical relations used by the USGS (Arrington. Verma etc.) are exponentials: Khebab,Thanks. Yes indeed my first attempts at modeling reserve growth involved using diffusion not dispersion since I was trying to duplicate the results of Arrington. Verma and don't forget Attanasi of the USGS :). But the problem with the standard diffusion growth laws is that these were not in fact self-limiting and therefore lead to the infinite reserve growth that you refer to and all these other guys claimed to see. This is the so-called parabolic law which goes as ~square-root(Time). Dispersion is neat in that it gives rise to this slowly increasing reserve growth that kind of looks like diffusion but has completely different principles behind it. (And there is another diffusion approach by the peak oil modelers from Italy. IIRC which is another twist largely unrelated to reserve growth) The historical data clearly shows that the biggest oil fields were not found first. The easiest to find fields were found first. Since oil is getting harder to find and where new discoveries have recently been made(Jack 2 offshore Brasil offshore Angola tec.) will be very expensive to extract the question then becomes why bother investing in the search for new oil fields? That appears to be what the majors have concluded. Let the smaller companies assume the risk of exploration and then buy them out if a new oil field is found. If nothing valuable is found then the majors have lost nothing. Thanks for the models to chew on. Per your comment on "the ferocity and doggedness of the so-called global warming deniers. The latest outpost for these contrarians climateaudit org" -May I recommend for the sake of civility and reasoned discourse that we not use "deniers" except for those who adamantly deny any human influence like in "Holocaust Deniers". Most of those who question the ruling dogma would better be classified as "global warming skeptics" or "agnostics" who are first skeptical or agnostic on the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming and second those who are skeptical about "our" ability to regulate climate compared to accommodating to it. This particularly applies to those who are skeptical of the ability of politicians and especially of the United Nations to make a significant reduction in global warming compared to the costs of accommodating our activities to it. Some like Bjorn Lomborg and the accept anthropogenic global warming but find that it should be placed at the bottom of the list in terms of major issues for humanity to deal with. The greater and more cost effective priorities are:* Control of HIV/AIDS* Providing micronutrients* Trade liberalisation* Control of malaria* Developing new agricultural technologies* Community-managed water supply and sanitation* Small-scale water technology for livelihoods* Research on water productivity in food production* Lowering the cost of starting a new business* Improving infant and child nutrition* Scaled-up basichealth services* Reducing the prevalance of LBW* Guest worker programems for the unskilled. Since Peak Oil was not addressed. I posit that it should be placed near the top of this list and far higher than climate change. Others like climate research scientist declare themselves to be "global warming optimists". Namely that Co2 emissions are not likely to be catastrophic and that any anthropogenic warming may actually be beneficial. Except that AGW will probably impact most of the issues shown on your list. For instance the geographical extent of Malaria will probably increase and an eventual rise in sea levels as well as glacier melting will probably affect many sources of potable water. What I did was take the graphic from the tide and current's website for. It's got 110 years of measurements and is a stable craton. But this will work for any station anywhere. I then extented the width to the year 2100. Next the IPCC projections for the increase was added to that end point (7" - 23"). The black line is projecting the current mean rate of sea level rise to 2100 (2.3"/Cy). Note it does not enter the IPCC projection area. The slope of the rate line would have to start to go to the red lines to make the IPCC targets. So far that change in slope has not happened. If all this melting is taking place then why has that rate in sea level not changed to make a hockey stick? The longer the current trend continues the steeper the slope to meet the IPCC targets. Unless the IPCC prediction target time is off or the magitude of the increase is off or both. Or the current rate will continue as is in which case the IPCC is totally off and AGW has a severe problem in one of its key predictions. Unless there is serious flaws with this model. Feel free to show me where. Maybe a new and separate thread could be started that looks specifically at levels of the sea over time. It's more complicated than that. Thermal energy stored deep within the oceans causes variation in sea level gravity also has an influence. The subterranean geology is not uniform some regions are more dense than others. This causes a subtle but significant shift in the Earth's gravitational force. This current rising of the sea level started long before our temp increase due to FF use (1970 onwards). If you want to claim that the over all increase in sea levels due to thermal expansion started when the current warm trend started in 1880 then you have a big problem if you want to tie this to AGW. Second the claim is all the glaciers and the pole ice sheets have been steadily melting since the 1970s. So where is all that water going? If it was going into the sea that should have shown up by now by changing the measured rate upwards. But that is not there. Why? For a start try "Researchers say that about half of the rise in global sea level since 1993 is due to thermal expansion of the ocean and about half to melting ice. As Earth warms these proportions are likely to change with dramatic results." Also the has clear discussion of the various models used by the IPCC in calculating sea level rise predictions for their most recent (Fourth) report. In those models the largest contributors to sea rise are thermal expansion mountain glacier melt (excluding Antarctica and Greenland) and ice sheet mass balance (changes in the glaciers and ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland). From the RealClimate article: "As an example take the A1FI scenario – this is the warmest and therefore defines the upper limits of the sea level range. The “best� estimates for this scenario are 28 cm for thermal expansion. 12 cm for glaciers and -3 cm for the ice sheet mass balance – note the IPCC still assumes that Antarctica gains more mass in this manner than Greenland loses. Added to this is a term according to (4) simply based on the assumption that the accelerated ice flow observed 1993-2003 remains constant ever after adding another 3 cm by the year 2095. In total this adds up to 40 cm with an ice sheet contribution of zero." It's one thing to have all these predictions it's another when the actual measurements don't back those predictions up. More accurate satellite measurements indicate that global sea level has risen by 1.2 inches over the past decade about 70% faster than the 20th century average. Scientists assumed that thermal expansion dominated contemporary SLR but recent progress reveals that freshwater contributions from land dominate consistent with recent acceleration of ice loss from glaciers. Notice the recent drop in sea temps and subsequence rate of sea level rise noted by the authors as "somewhat dissappointing". The question is when more measurments are done in the next few years and they do not support the climate change model then what? If it does then you have my assurance that I will be more acceptable of AGW theory. If it doesn't will be more apt to rejected AGW theory? Eliminating infectious disease and reducing child mortality has alleviated suffering but now the population of Africa has doubled since 1970 and tripled since 1950. The people are still in relative poverty and are back at square one facing a future of food shortages. Only now they have more mouths to feed. That's quite true. I guess he refers to the demographic transition. We do need to distinguish what part of the world we are dealing with and they have different characteristics and therefore different requirements. Since procreation has been declared a universal human right that rules out any coercive approach to birth control. Only China can get away with it. Therefore that only leaves promotion of factors that lead to the demographic transition which are wealth and education particularly female education. Efforts should be concentrated in those areas or at least included as part of a sustainable development policy. Hmm not sure about contraception it's problematic. You quickly run into problems with religion social practices and ethical concerns. Non-use of birth control is a symptom rather than a cause. It's a problem just getting girls into education linking education to birth control complicates the issue. Making contraception available without having women empowered has proved to be ineffective. The assumption is that wealthier educated women are in a position to demand and use birth control and therefore it is best to tackle that element and birth control will be adopted as a result. Would like to point out that we have not eliminated infectious disease and other microbial competitors and instead we beat them back on a continual basis with cheap energy to:* cook and store food* heat water to wash our bodies and clothes* treat and sequester our bodily wastes* treat serious infection with antibiotics Requiring yet more cheap energy to fight back the competitors who want our food and the food off of our own 6.6 billion bodies. "Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing but ultimately empty and illogical assertions." There most certainly are AGW denialists. Lomborg doesn't actually deny that AGW is real so he can not by this definition be called a denialist. However you might also want to take a look at this post: The Copenhagen Consensus over at RealClimate org for another point of view as to the quality of its scientific content. My acid test is that these guys are not that worthy of the skeptical moniker unless for example Michael Shermer and his cohorts at Skeptic com get behind them. Skeptics are the ones that go against the corporate power structure and historical conventional wisdom. If we don't label the people as such then we get into the skeptical skeptics chasing other skeptics tails. So "denialists" for me defines the people trying to defend the conventional corporate wisdom. We in fact are the skeptics who question the Big Oil dogma. The closest I can come to skeptics by your definition is the dudes at Freakonomics blog who in fact get it completely wrong on PO. IMO. They mainly go after people who misuse statistics and they think the PO people fit into this category. So they are skeptics on the use of probability and statistics. Since I take no position on AGW. I don't deny it. I just see evidence that does not support the theory. Am I a "denier" then? If so that does not describe my position at all as I don't deny AGW. I'm waiting for more evidence either way. But in the mean time. I read BOTH sides unlike the dogmatists who want to keep the AGW orthodoxy going for their own reasons. Excellent paper. Thanks for posting it. I really liked the end where he clearly states he does not get funded by Big Oil yet environmentalists do!! This is a serious flaw in AGW. Along with other flaws it begs a question. Do you still want to be on the band wagon should the wheels fall off? If that happens if the IPCC has to finally admit that they're wern't right that more research is needed then a lot of reputations will be destroyed (will Gore have to give his Nobel prize back?) Skepticism healthy skepticism is the safest place to be. It means you are never wrong it also means that regardless of what the science shows you are flexible enough to accept anything major that changes the orthodoxy. When the dogmatic side has to resort to name calling (Elizabeth May leader of the Green Party here just said what Canada did in Uganda was like the Nazis she won’t last long) have to resort to denying people grants because they disagree with the dogma then that dogma is in serious trouble. If AGW is admitted to being wrong this may go down in history as the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity. Then you misunderstand what the theory of AGW is. Yes these things happen. But collectively they form the theory of AGW. Here is an example. The Theory of Biological evolution is not a fact. What is fact is the 3 components that are observed that make up the theory: Sexual reproduction genetic variability and natural selection. Yet evolution has undergone a major upheaval back in the 70's when the evidence for Punctuated Equilibrium showed that the 150 year held view of gradualism was wrong. Now we have another major upheaval in evolution with the Linnean system of classification. Phylogenetic systematics is making that system obsolete. The point is one can accept the facts but not the theory that is supposedly employed to explain those facts. If you read the published papers now coming out then you will see that there are other facts that the theory of AGW cannot explain. There are also predictions of AGW theory that have not yet happened and if they never happen the theory of AGW is in serious trouble. So please be careful not to confuse data sets with the theory that tries to explain that dataset. Spenser's paper is a big slap in the face to AGW theory becuase it provides evidence that the proposed positive feed backs are held in check by a negative feedback. What he is saying is that precipitation is the earths A/C unit. Any increase in temp will trigger more precipitation which will cool the planet. You couple this with the lack of change in the rate of sea level increase and you have breakable flaws in AGW theory. And how can you both accept the facts I presented say those are the basis of AGW and then say the theory is incorrect? What you seem to be implying is that even though climate change is happening and is caused by humans. (therefore you actually accept climate change theory) we shouldn't worry about it because negative feedbacks will make things okay. To believe this you must be extremely selective in your use of published papers and data with respect to climate change. In fact instead of being less concerned over tim

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

label: Jim Wyckoff Location: IowaHobbies: Boating. Camping. Hiking and anything else outdoors I am a Senior Market Analyst for a FREE educational website. I have been involved with the stock financial and futures markets for more than 20 years. I became a financial journalist with Futures World News for many years where I covered every futures market traded in the United States at one time or another. Not long after I began my career in financial journalism. I began studying technical analysis. My extensive studies of technical analysis and knowledge of markets led to several positions including chief technical analyst at several reputable companies. You can also read additional FREE daily commentary at The mission of my morning web log or "blog" is to give you with the very latest perspective and opinion on selected key markets. I will help you start your trading day by providing you with concise and valuable trading "nuggets" to help you in your daily trading plans. The merchandise feature in overnight/early morning trading today is higher gold and crude oil prices. Crude oil is at record highs and nearing the $100 a barrel level while gold is nearing its all-time high set 27 years ago. I've said it before but it's worth repeating: Crude oil gold and the value of the U. S dollar versus the other study currencies are still a powerful axis that is impacting most other commodity and financial markets.--Jim The stock indexes are firmer in early morning electronic trading. The bears comfort have the slight near-term technical favor as prices are comfort in a downtrend from the October highs. December S&P 500: The shorter-term moving averages (4-. 9- and 18-day) are still bearish early today. The 4-day moving add up is below the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day is below the 18-day moving average. Short-term oscillators (RSI slow stochastics) are neutral to bullish early today. Today shorter-term technical support comes in at the overnight low of 1,441.20. Sell stops likely reside just under that level. More change stops likely reside under shorter-term technical give at 1,430.00. Upside resistance for active traders today is located at the overnight high of 1,454.20 and then at 1,460.00. Buy stops are likely located just above those levels. Wyckoff's Intra-day Market Rating: 5.5 Pivot:------------ 1,434.451st Support:------ 1,425.002nd Support:------ 1,408.051st Resistance:--- 1,451.402nd Resistance:--- 1,460.85 Nasdaq Index: The shorter-term moving averages (4- 9-and 18-day) are bearish early today. The 4-day moving average is below the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day average is below the 18-day. Short-term oscillators (RSI decrease stochastics) are neutral to bullish early today. Shorter-term technical support is located at the overnight low of 2,033.00. Sell stops likely reside just below that level and then more change stops are likely located just below technical support at 2,014.00. On the upside short-term resistance is seen at the overnight high of 2,049.00 and then at last week's high of 2,072.00. Buy stops are likely located just above those levels. Wyckoff's Intra-Day Market Rating: 6.0 Pivot:------------ 2,025.351st Support:------ 2,013.702nd Support:------ 1,994.851st Resistance:--- 2,044.202nd Resistance:--- 2,055.85 December Dow: Sell stops likely reside just below support at Friday's low of 12,890 and then more stops just below support at measure week's low of 12,810. Buy stops likely dwell just above shorter-term technical resistance at 13,085 and then just above resistance at 13,175. Shorter-term moving averages are bearish early today as the 4-day moving add up is below the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day moving average is below the 18-day moving add up. Shorter-term oscillators (RSI slow stochastics) are neutral to bullish today. Wyckoff's Intra-Day Market Rating: 5.5 U. S. T-Bonds and T-Notes futures prices are weaker early today. But the bulls be technically strong amid no early clues of market tops being close at transfer. December U. S. T-Bonds: Shorter-term moving averages (4- 9- 18-day) are bullish early today. The 4-day moving average is above the 9-day. The 9-day is above the 18-day moving add up. Oscillators (RSI slow stochastics) are neutral to bearish early today. Shorter-term technical resistance lies at the assure high of 116 31/32. Buy stops likely reside just above that level. More buy stops likely dwell just above technical resistance at 117 8/32. Shorter-term technical give lies at Friday's low of 116 11/32. Sell stops likely reside just below that aim. More change stops are likely located below support at 116 even. Wyckoff's Intra-Day Market Rating: 6.5 turn:----------- 116 23/321st give:----- 116 16/32 2nd give:----- 116 3/321st Resistance:-- 117 4/322nd Resistance:-- 117 11/32 December U. S. T-Notes: Shorter-term oscillators (RSI slow stochastics) are neutral to bearish early today. Buy stops likely reside just above shorter-term technical resistance at the overnight high of 113.12.0 and then just above resistance at the assure high of 113.23.5. Shorter-term moving averages are bullish early today. The 4-day moving average is above the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day is above the 18-day moving add up. change stop orders are likely located just below support at 113.00.0 and then more change stops just below give at 112.27.5. Wyckoff's Intra Day Market Rating: 6.5

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.traderblog.com/2007/11/gold_crude_dollar_still_powerf.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

label: Jim Wyckoff Location: IowaHobbies: Boating. Camping. Hiking and anything else outdoors I am a Senior merchandise Analyst for a FREE educational website. I have been involved with the have financial and futures markets for more than 20 years. I became a financial journalist with Futures World News for many years where I covered every futures market traded in the United States at one time or another. Not long after I began my career in financial journalism. I began studying technical analysis. My extensive studies of technical analysis and knowledge of markets led to several positions including chief technical analyst at several reputable companies. You can also read additional remove daily commentary at The mission of my morning web log or "blog" is to provide you with the very latest perspective and opinion on selected key markets. I will back up you go away your trading day by providing you with concise and valuable trading "nuggets" to help you in your daily trading plans. The market feature in overnight/early morning trading today is higher gold and crude oil prices. Crude oil is at record highs and nearing the $100 a lay level while gold is nearing its all-time high set 27 years ago. I've said it before but it's worth repeating: Crude oil gold and the determine of the U. S dollar versus the other major currencies are comfort a powerful axis that is impacting most other commodity and financial markets.--Jim The stock indexes are firmer in early morning electronic trading. The bears comfort have the slight near-term technical favor as prices are still in a downtrend from the October highs. December S&P 500: The shorter-term moving averages (4-. 9- and 18-day) are still bearish early today. The 4-day moving average is below the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day is below the 18-day moving average. Short-term oscillators (RSI decrease stochastics) are neutral to bullish early today. Today shorter-term technical support comes in at the overnight low of 1,441.20. Sell stops likely dwell just under that level. More sell stops likely dwell under shorter-term technical give at 1,430.00. Upside resistance for active traders today is located at the overnight high of 1,454.20 and then at 1,460.00. Buy stops are likely located just above those levels. Wyckoff's Intra-day merchandise Rating: 5.5 Pivot:------------ 1,434.451st Support:------ 1,425.002nd Support:------ 1,408.051st Resistance:--- 1,451.402nd Resistance:--- 1,460.85 Nasdaq Index: The shorter-term moving averages (4- 9-and 18-day) are bearish early today. The 4-day moving average is below the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day add up is below the 18-day. Short-term oscillators (RSI slow stochastics) are neutral to bullish early today. Shorter-term technical support is located at the overnight low of 2,033.00. Sell stops likely dwell just below that aim and then more change stops are likely located just below technical support at 2,014.00. On the upside short-term resistance is seen at the overnight high of 2,049.00 and then at last week's high of 2,072.00. Buy stops are likely located just above those levels. Wyckoff's Intra-Day Market Rating: 6.0 Pivot:------------ 2,025.351st Support:------ 2,013.702nd Support:------ 1,994.851st Resistance:--- 2,044.202nd Resistance:--- 2,055.85 December Dow: Sell stops likely dwell just below support at Friday's low of 12,890 and then more stops just below give at measure week's low of 12,810. Buy stops likely reside just above shorter-term technical resistance at 13,085 and then just above resistance at 13,175. Shorter-term moving averages are bearish early today as the 4-day moving average is below the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day moving add up is below the 18-day moving add up. Shorter-term oscillators (RSI slow stochastics) are neutral to bullish today. Wyckoff's Intra-Day Market Rating: 5.5 U. S. T-Bonds and T-Notes futures prices are weaker early today. But the bulls remain technically strong amid no early clues of market tops being change state at hand. December U. S. T-Bonds: Shorter-term moving averages (4- 9- 18-day) are bullish early today. The 4-day moving add up is above the 9-day. The 9-day is above the 18-day moving average. Oscillators (RSI slow stochastics) are neutral to bearish early today. Shorter-term technical resistance lies at the contract high of 116 31/32. Buy stops likely reside just above that level. More buy stops likely reside just above technical resistance at 117 8/32. Shorter-term technical support lies at Friday's low of 116 11/32. Sell stops likely reside just below that aim. More sell stops are likely located below support at 116 even. Wyckoff's Intra-Day Market Rating: 6.5 Pivot:----------- 116 23/321st give:----- 116 16/32 2nd Support:----- 116 3/321st Resistance:-- 117 4/322nd Resistance:-- 117 11/32 December U. S. T-Notes: Shorter-term oscillators (RSI decrease stochastics) are neutral to bearish early today. Buy stops likely reside just above shorter-term technical resistance at the overnight high of 113.12.0 and then just above resistance at the contract high of 113.23.5. Shorter-term moving averages are bullish early today. The 4-day moving average is above the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day is above the 18-day moving average. change stop orders are likely located just below support at 113.00.0 and then more sell stops just below give at 112.27.5. Wyckoff's Intra Day Market Rating: 6.5

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.traderblog.com/2007/11/gold_crude_dollar_still_powerf.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

label: Jim Wyckoff Location: IowaHobbies: Boating. Camping. Hiking and anything else outdoors I am a Senior merchandise Analyst for a remove educational website. I have been involved with the have financial and futures markets for more than 20 years. I became a financial journalist with Futures World News for many years where I covered every futures market traded in the United States at one time or another. Not long after I began my career in financial journalism. I began studying technical analysis. My extensive studies of technical analysis and knowledge of markets led to several positions including chief technical analyst at several reputable companies. You can also read additional remove daily commentary at The mission of my morning web log or "communicate" is to provide you with the very latest perspective and opinion on selected key markets. I will back up you go away your trading day by providing you with concise and valuable trading "nuggets" to help you in your daily trading plans. The market feature in overnight/early morning trading today is higher gold and crude oil prices. Crude oil is at record highs and nearing the $100 a lay level while gold is nearing its all-time high set 27 years ago. I've said it before but it's worth repeating: Crude oil gold and the value of the U. S dollar versus the other major currencies are still a powerful axis that is impacting most other commodity and financial markets.--Jim The stock indexes are firmer in early morning electronic trading. The bears still have the slight near-term technical favor as prices are comfort in a downtrend from the October highs. December S&P 500: The shorter-term moving averages (4-. 9- and 18-day) are still bearish early today. The 4-day moving average is below the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day is below the 18-day moving add up. Short-term oscillators (RSI slow stochastics) are neutral to bullish early today. Today shorter-term technical give comes in at the overnight low of 1,441.20. change stops likely dwell just under that level. More sell stops likely reside under shorter-term technical support at 1,430.00. Upside resistance for active traders today is located at the overnight high of 1,454.20 and then at 1,460.00. Buy stops are likely located just above those levels. Wyckoff's Intra-day Market Rating: 5.5 turn:------------ 1,434.451st Support:------ 1,425.002nd give:------ 1,408.051st Resistance:--- 1,451.402nd Resistance:--- 1,460.85 Nasdaq Index: The shorter-term moving averages (4- 9-and 18-day) are bearish early today. The 4-day moving add up is below the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day add up is below the 18-day. Short-term oscillators (RSI decrease stochastics) are neutral to bullish early today. Shorter-term technical support is located at the overnight low of 2,033.00. Sell stops likely dwell just below that level and then more sell stops are likely located just below technical give at 2,014.00. On the upside short-term resistance is seen at the overnight high of 2,049.00 and then at last week's high of 2,072.00. Buy stops are likely located just above those levels. Wyckoff's Intra-Day Market Rating: 6.0 Pivot:------------ 2,025.351st Support:------ 2,013.702nd Support:------ 1,994.851st Resistance:--- 2,044.202nd Resistance:--- 2,055.85 December Dow: Sell stops likely reside just below give at Friday's low of 12,890 and then more stops just below support at measure week's low of 12,810. Buy stops likely reside just above shorter-term technical resistance at 13,085 and then just above resistance at 13,175. Shorter-term moving averages are bearish early today as the 4-day moving average is below the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day moving average is below the 18-day moving average. Shorter-term oscillators (RSI slow stochastics) are neutral to bullish today. Wyckoff's Intra-Day merchandise Rating: 5.5 U. S. T-Bonds and T-Notes futures prices are weaker early today. But the bulls be technically strong amid no early clues of market tops being close at transfer. December U. S. T-Bonds: Shorter-term moving averages (4- 9- 18-day) are bullish early today. The 4-day moving average is above the 9-day. The 9-day is above the 18-day moving add up. Oscillators (RSI decrease stochastics) are neutral to bearish early today. Shorter-term technical resistance lies at the assure high of 116 31/32. Buy stops likely reside just above that level. More buy stops likely dwell just above technical resistance at 117 8/32. Shorter-term technical support lies at Friday's low of 116 11/32. Sell stops likely reside just below that level. More sell stops are likely located below support at 116 change surface. Wyckoff's Intra-Day Market Rating: 6.5 Pivot:----------- 116 23/321st give:----- 116 16/32 2nd Support:----- 116 3/321st Resistance:-- 117 4/322nd Resistance:-- 117 11/32 December U. S. T-Notes: Shorter-term oscillators (RSI slow stochastics) are neutral to bearish early today. Buy stops likely reside just above shorter-term technical resistance at the overnight high of 113.12.0 and then just above resistance at the contract high of 113.23.5. Shorter-term moving averages are bullish early today. The 4-day moving average is above the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day is above the 18-day moving add up. Sell stop orders are likely located just below support at 113.00.0 and then more sell stops just below give at 112.27.5. Wyckoff's Intra Day merchandise Rating: 6.5

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.traderblog.com/2007/11/gold_crude_dollar_still_powerf.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Name: Jim Wyckoff Location: IowaHobbies: Boating. Camping. Hiking and anything else outdoors I am a Senior merchandise Analyst for a FREE educational website. I undergo been involved with the have financial and futures markets for more than 20 years. I became a financial journalist with Futures World News for many years where I covered every futures market traded in the United States at one time or another. Not long after I began my career in financial journalism. I began studying technical analysis. My extensive studies of technical analysis and knowledge of markets led to several positions including chief technical analyst at several reputable companies. You can also construe additional FREE daily commentary at The mission of my morning web log or "blog" is to provide you with the very latest perspective and opinion on selected key markets. I will help you start your trading day by providing you with concise and valuable trading "nuggets" to help you in your daily trading plans. The market feature in overnight/early morning trading today is higher gold and crude oil prices. Crude oil is at record highs and nearing the $100 a barrel level while gold is nearing its all-time high set 27 years ago. I've said it before but it's worth repeating: Crude oil gold and the value of the U. S dollar versus the other study currencies are comfort a powerful axis that is impacting most other commodity and financial markets.--Jim The have indexes are firmer in early morning electronic trading. The bears still have the brush aside near-term technical favor as prices are still in a downtrend from the October highs. December S&P 500: The shorter-term moving averages (4-. 9- and 18-day) are still bearish early today. The 4-day moving average is below the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day is below the 18-day moving average. Short-term oscillators (RSI decrease stochastics) are neutral to bullish early today. Today shorter-term technical give comes in at the overnight low of 1,441.20. change stops likely reside just under that aim. More sell stops likely reside under shorter-term technical give at 1,430.00. Upside resistance for active traders today is located at the overnight high of 1,454.20 and then at 1,460.00. Buy stops are likely located just above those levels. Wyckoff's Intra-day merchandise Rating: 5.5 turn:------------ 1,434.451st Support:------ 1,425.002nd give:------ 1,408.051st Resistance:--- 1,451.402nd Resistance:--- 1,460.85 Nasdaq Index: The shorter-term moving averages (4- 9-and 18-day) are bearish early today. The 4-day moving add up is below the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day add up is below the 18-day. Short-term oscillators (RSI slow stochastics) are neutral to bullish early today. Shorter-term technical support is located at the overnight low of 2,033.00. Sell stops likely reside just below that level and then more sell stops are likely located just below technical give at 2,014.00. On the upside short-term resistance is seen at the overnight high of 2,049.00 and then at last week's high of 2,072.00. Buy stops are likely located just above those levels. Wyckoff's Intra-Day Market Rating: 6.0 Pivot:------------ 2,025.351st Support:------ 2,013.702nd Support:------ 1,994.851st Resistance:--- 2,044.202nd Resistance:--- 2,055.85 December Dow: Sell stops likely dwell just below give at Friday's low of 12,890 and then more stops just below support at last week's low of 12,810. Buy stops likely reside just above shorter-term technical resistance at 13,085 and then just above resistance at 13,175. Shorter-term moving averages are bearish early today as the 4-day moving add up is below the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day moving average is below the 18-day moving add up. Shorter-term oscillators (RSI decrease stochastics) are neutral to bullish today. Wyckoff's Intra-Day merchandise Rating: 5.5 U. S. T-Bonds and T-Notes futures prices are weaker early today. But the bulls be technically strong amid no early clues of merchandise tops being change state at transfer. December U. S. T-Bonds: Shorter-term moving averages (4- 9- 18-day) are bullish early today. The 4-day moving average is above the 9-day. The 9-day is above the 18-day moving average. Oscillators (RSI slow stochastics) are neutral to bearish early today. Shorter-term technical resistance lies at the contract high of 116 31/32. Buy stops likely reside just above that aim. More buy stops likely reside just above technical resistance at 117 8/32. Shorter-term technical support lies at Friday's low of 116 11/32. Sell stops likely reside just below that level. More sell stops are likely located below support at 116 even. Wyckoff's Intra-Day Market Rating: 6.5 turn:----------- 116 23/321st Support:----- 116 16/32 2nd give:----- 116 3/321st Resistance:-- 117 4/322nd Resistance:-- 117 11/32 December U. S. T-Notes: Shorter-term oscillators (RSI slow stochastics) are neutral to bearish early today. Buy stops likely reside just above shorter-term technical resistance at the overnight high of 113.12.0 and then just above resistance at the contract high of 113.23.5. Shorter-term moving averages are bullish early today. The 4-day moving average is above the 9-day and 18-day. The 9-day is above the 18-day moving average. Sell forbid orders are likely located just below give at 113.00.0 and then more change stops just below support at 112.27.5. Wyckoff's Intra Day merchandise Rating: 6.5

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.traderblog.com/2007/11/gold_crude_dollar_still_powerf.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Can't get enough of (aka Furuba) by Natsuki Takaya? Then join us this Friday night at Malletts Creek for a Furuba-themed celebration. We'll be discussing the latest twists and turns of the manga screening episodes of the anime and making a cool fashion. Light snacks will be provided. For Grades 6-12. Assoc. Prof and head of Composition at UM will address and present selections from his new bring home the bacon. “The Old Burying Ground: A Song Cycle,� on at 7 pm at the Downtown Library. He ordain be accompanied by writer Keith Taylor and pianist Suzanne Camino. Chambers’ new work will be performed at Hill Auditorium on Dec. 10 and Carnegie Hall on February 28th. 2008.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.aadl.org/node/9341

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons: You are not logged in. Fill in the form at the bottom of this page and try again. You may not have sufficient privileges to find this page. Are you trying to alter someone else's affix access administrative features or some other privileged system? If you are trying to post the administrator may have disabled your account or it may be awaiting activation. The administrator may have required you to before you can believe this page. Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4procure ©2000 - 2007. Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.djforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117655

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Allies started off w/ Rax Rifles FHQ on south Ango for some reason. I saw WSC and went for quick puma after trying and failing to take the FHQ in a desire battle after lots of skirmishes. I push back and then undergo to chase M10s around w/ schrecked storms finally tigers > pershings and GG. I was floating fuel / muni at the end. I'm not sure how I could undergo spent the muni as assail (everyone had schrecks or MP40) but should I undergo bought more vet or gone T4 or was there just nothing else to do there?-ChipsAhoya Replay Name: AUTOMATCH_1VS1Map: Angoville (2)Filename: AngoBlitzOverArmor89 recAllied players: Axis players: Enjoyed the match immensely! Allied player treated his riflemen as though they were obsolete once his tanks rolled out. Good work sneaking up on that take squad. The allied player had a much better early bet than you but he either got tired or didnt think bars was a necessary upgrade (it was)abstain puma is becoming a fairly popular strat i see. alter: Floating munis? Use grenades! Nothing to nade? create mines! Greyhounds are my favorite!drChengele: Isn't there some CoH Godwin's law already that states if you name mines as a answer to something you automatically suffer the go? Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7Copyright &write;2000 - 2007. Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Dawn of War the begin of War logo. GWI the GWI logo. Games Workshop. GW. 40k. Chaos. Eldar. Ork. Warhammer. Warhammer 40,000 Device. lay Marine. Space Marine chapter logos and all associated races go insignia marks places characters illustrations and images from the begin of War game and the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either ®. (tm) and/or © Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2004 variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world and used under authorise. All materials © procure Games Workshop Limited 2004 except the obtain Code for the Dawn of War bet © 2004 THQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?p=2530656#post2530656

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

This is a fisheye view of the VATT telescope with a bit more lighten than in my previous picture of it. The telescope is on an alt-azimuth mount which means one axis of the attach rotates around the vertical (the azimuth axis) while the other perpendicular axis rotates around the horizontal (the altitude axis). The attach is the color part of the telescope. The telescope itself is white and exceptionally short due to its f/1 Gregorian design which gives an effective f/9 at the camera despite the 1.8-meter mirror. The CCD camera can be seen at the bottom of the color part of the telescope inside the yellow fork of the mount. The image was taken with an 8mm fisheye lens with an exposure of 1/8 seconds at f/8. ISO 1600.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://pixofmyuniverse.blogspot.com/2007/09/vatt_18.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Nils Petter Molvær (NPM). Norwegian trumpet player composer and producer connects multiple music styles - play ambient house electronic and end beats as come up as elements from hip hop move back and forth and pop music - and effortlessly melts them into convincing soundscapes of deep intensity. Born in 1960 on the little island Sula (Norway). NPM was introduced to jazz from an early age by his musician create. After playing in educate bands and local clubs he left Sula in 1979 to study music at the conservatory of Trondheim where he developed his unique call and started to obtain a reputation as one of Norway's emerging new talents. His arouse in both acoustic and electric music shows the ease with which he handles the conventions of pop rock and move alongside those of modern play. These unique sensibilities soon established him as a much sought after musician in Oslo. After his intermezzo with the Norwegian jazz combo Masqualero. NPM was introduced to Manfred Eicher who integrated him into his cast of musicians and studio sessions with ECM artists such as Robyn Schulkowsky. NPM completed his debut album as a leader in 1997. “Khmer� which focuses on a previously unknown amalgamate of improvisation and hypnotically spinning beats receiving extraordinary public and media response and was honoured with the German preserve Critics allocate and a Norwegian Grammy. ECM for the first measure in its history released singles from an album. “Khmer: The Remixes� with remixes of The Herbaliser. Mental exploit and Rockers Hi-Fi was released based on the success with “Khmer�. The eagerly awaited follow-up to “Khmer� released by ECM in May 2000 entitled “Solid Ether� intensified NPM's dialogue with club culture. The idea behind the “Solid Ether� concept is that a piece of music is never really finished and that composing and producing are an ever-evolving process. “'Ether' does not exist so how can it be solid? It's a paradox - like life�. NPM's album “np3� released by Universal Music assort in 2002 sees him continuing the concepts that were developed through “Khmer� and “Solid Ether� by putting significant differing elements together to combine contrasting structures. A strong presence on “np3� is NPM's soulful and creative use of new music manufacturing technology. “All these new tools are in themselves both positive and contradict. The challenge is all about timing - when to stop the 'moment' and then stand still it and press it.� Time changes appear changes music changes “Being from a generation that didn't change up with the traditional standards this is a taste of my tradition..� To enhance the 'musical travel' experience that this is meant to be. NPM has added small ambient islands that bind the whole production together. “np3� was followed by the beautiful DVD “Molvær be�.“NP3� was remixed by artists such as Bugge Wesseltoft. Funkstörung. Matthew Herbert. Clive-Lowe/Dego. Bill Laswell and Martin Koller and released as “Remakes� in 2005. A critic proclaimed that: “Remakes confirm once again that Nils Petter Molvær's music upholds its quality from here to eternity and that it is a small kingdom for the world's beat sound manipulators�. ~ 2002's 'NP3' seems to be something of a change state of one chapter and the opening of another for Molvær. Constructed through editing fragments of ideas sounds and melodies 'NP3' lets more chinks of light through the protect of appear than on his previous albums. The pristine sound has mutated once again stripped down and lean the likes of 'Marrow'. 'Frozen' and 'Hurry Slowly' are sinewy virile creatures compared to the brute force of early songs. 'Axis Of Ignorance' turns the W. furnish sound bite "the axis of evil" on its continue. NPM giving vent to his feelings affix 9/11 of frustration and arouse with a biting drum and bass attack of his own. The feeling of cybernetic biodynamic forms and the streamlined feeling of cyberspace as referenced in the title itself (the transfer revolution has not gone unnoticed in jazz circles either) is all move of NPM's continual examine for something new yet organic the fact that he's recently started playing to live art installations is also indicative of his be to act in real measure to events around him musical or otherwise. Yet Molvær's comprehend of the gift and poetic is comfort with him on the gorgeous piece 'Little Indian' dedicated to his daughter the decrease dub conclude taken literally with baby steps. 'Nebulizer' the razor-sharp parting shot that also became the final battery of beats almost vicious in its intent the air-raid siren of Molvaer's trumpet sounds as the apocalypse begins then the calming aftermath a new begin with hope springing up to replace despair. ~ Very Highly Recommended!!Tracklisting:1. Tabula Rasa (2:22)2. Axis of Ignorance (4:45)3. Hurry Slowly (7:32)4. Marrow (7:20)5. Frozen (6:37)6. Presence (5:43)7. Simply So (6:51)8. Little Indian (4:43)9. Nebulizer (8:02)be Time: 53:55Keep Listening!!!!

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://jazzrockz.blogspot.com/2007/09/nils-petter-molvr-np3-2002-ape-lossless.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations as well as the First and back up World Wars in general hosted by Marcus Wendel's in cooperation with Michael Miller's. Christoph Awender's. Dan Reinbold's and Christian Ankerstjerne's. Welcome to the Axis History Forum!This is an apolitical forum dedicated to discussions on the World Wars. Our main focus is on the Axis nations of WW2 but we encourage discussions on all aspects of the 20th Century. Joining up is free and we accept everyone regardless of your nationality and level of knowledge so write up today and take part in the discussions! I got original booklet (manual) for driver of 8 wheels gelandewagen. It undergo schedule exemplar #76 engine and be nambered. 204 pagesAs It not my area of interest I would like to trade this one to original AA tripod for MG34 if somebody interested.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1112979#1112979

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

o. O clones are scary huh.. lol later they alter use of the clone to do something bad den the real human got caught for doing something they didnt do.. wish there isnt any copy lol.. anyway nice show =D i will be the wierdest i furnish it 11/10 over normal rating cause it reallys rox ^^ 1. 2. 3 always number one come first and i am the first to watch this show.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.crunchyroll.com/showmedia?id=146687

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Welcome to the CNCzone com-The Ultimate Machinist Community forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and find our other features. By joining our remove community you will undergo find to affix topics communicate privately with other members (PM) act to polls upload content and find many other special features. Registration is abstain simple and absolutely remove so please. ! If you undergo any problems with the registration affect or your be login gratify contact. command Electronics Discussion address basic electronics power supplies and anything else electronic related here. Spammers it's a expend of your time to join this site you will never get past the moderators and in most cases won't even get pass the registration affect. We AGGRESSIVELY observe all forums and ban at ordain. At beat your affix will be up for a min and gone forever. I'm kicking around the idea of putting together a DIY open obtain PCI separate ito be used as a 1 through 8 axis controller; can be used for stepper or servo motors on any combination of axes. PID compensation with velocity and acceleration. Modes of motion include jogging point-to-point positioning contouring electronic gearing lay tracking linear and circular interpolation. A Mach3/EMC interface/with a active "closed loop" error handling. Dual encoders for every servo/stepper axis. Optically isolated I/O. This would very much be DIY come to a Galil Motion hold back Products. I don't plan on mass marketing or making kits but leaving it open obtain on both electronic create by mental act and firmware. Any suggestions would be helpful. I guess the success of this idea would need the early input for sign create by mental act. I see it as a PCI card connecting to a breakout board of some write; this could then feed to Servo Amplifiers or Stepper Controller. Any comments would be appriciated!Karl wish i could back up but don't know muchThe project seems very interesting Can't wait to see it What kind of LSI Processor are you thinking of using ? Something desire the TI or Motorola DSP etc?What about the HMI part of it will this be the Mach/Galil already partly developed?A decent on come in PLC with create interface to OPTO G4 module boards would be an asset. Al. __________________"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert E.(Note: The opinions expressed in this post are my own and are not necessarily those of CNCzone and its management) I hope to use what I am comfortable with: Motorola. TI or Philips NDX for the controller. Either Xilynx or PLX for the PCI front end bus controller part. I know that breadboarding isn't that tough for me - I've got 25 years of design and prototyping to fall back on. The Mach/Galil portion may just be wide open - haven't thought much about that. The programming of a plugin may just be a fit group effort of anyone following the open obtain idea. I anticipate I should return the Mach Galil plugin to try defining a come in that mimics their I/O plot. Open sources may just bring a lot of expertise along for the ride. I am using Eagle Schematic Capture on this project since the freeware version will accept others to apply/critique/join in. G4 (I am assuming your talking of OPTO22's G4 bus) is easy enough to consider a 50 pin header going to a 16 module OPTO22 come in. The I/O modules would have to be defined in software - and the PLC progamming could work off that! I change surface have a ton of Analog OPTO22 stuff in my *junk* box to displace through an analog contoller portion of the board. Hmm.. analog drive gauges temp observe and air compel/flow monitor; just act process I ge my hands on a plasma cutter to mod!Thanks!Karl

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43003

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Method. Thirty-five consecutive patients with sagittal imbalance (29 females/6 males average age at surgery. 53.1 years) treated with lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomies (1 at L1. 13 at L2. 20 at L3 and 1 at L4) at 1 institution were analyzed (average follow-up. 5.8 years; range. 5-7.6 years). Radiographic and clinical outcomes analysis was performed. Results. There were no significant regional radiographic changes between 2 years postoperative and the ultimate follow-up (proximal junctional dress. P = 0.30; thoracic kyphosis. P = 0.38; and lumbar lordosis. P = 0.84) although many patients did show an increasingly anterior C7 sagittal measure with time. Ten pseudarthroses (29%) occurred in 8 patients and were revised between 2 and 5 years postoperative. There were no pseudarthroses at the osteotomy aim (9 at the thoracolumbar junction. 1 at the LS junction) but at the levels added to the previous fusions. There was no degradation in Oswestry and Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcome scores between 2 years postoperative and ultimate follow-up (P = 0.23 and 0.90 respectively). Patients reported very good satisfaction (87%) good self-image (76%) good answer (69%) and fair pain subscales (66%) at ultimate follow-up. Sagittal vertical axis Conclusion. Pedicle subtraction osteotomy can give satisfactory clinical and radiographic outcomes for patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up despite needing pseudarthrosis revision and some component of increasingly positive sagittal vertical axis between 2 years and 5 to 8 years of follow-up. The level of patient satisfaction and self-image subscales were high after more than 5 years of follow-up. Restoration and maintenance of sagittal vertical axis

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/abstract.00007632-200709150-00008.htm

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

* Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas - 8 messages. 4 authors * I've been "Jew'ed" - 6 messages. 6 authors * Einstein's energy formula E=mc^2 is do by! - 3 messages. 2 authors * Expanding The Micro-Universe. Contracting The Macro-Universe - 1 messages. 1compose * #21sept11/10:30pm transcendental number theory has to be revamped Re: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS - 2 messages. 2 authors * Presumption of amateur status - 3 messages. 3 authors * CNotM NOMINATION: Re: WINNERS! Usenet Kook Awards. August 2007 - 1 messages,1 author * Deco likes Glazed Donuts...... - 1 messages. 1 compose On Sep 12. 2:09 pm. account Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix netcom com> wrote:> On Wed. 12 Sep 2007 10:03:23 -0400. Whata cozen wrote:> > On Tue. 11 Sep 2007 20:45:08 -0700. account protect> > <bw...@REMOVETHISix netcom com> wrote:>> >>On Tue. 11 Sep 2007 21:09:52 -0400. Whata cozen wrote:> >>> On Tue. 11 Sep 2007 17:00:19 -0700. "Phil." <fel...@princeton edu>> >>> wrote:> >>>>No. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that energy is lost by> >>>>radiation from CO2. H2O,O3. N2O. CH4 etc as observed and not N2 and> >>>>O2!>> >>> Are you comfortable enough to explain how 800,000 parts> >>> per million of N2 and 180,000 parts per million of O2 are cooled are> >>> you saying that CO2 plays a big part in cooling the air after the> >>> ascend warms it by convection?>> >>> How many parts CO2 is that? 388 parts per million?>> >>> Wow what a cooling agent CO2 is!>> >>CO2 isn't. H20 is.>> > Perhaps you missed my challenge.>> > What cools the N2 and O2 of the atmosphere above> > the clouds there is a lot a really LOT of thermal energy released when> > clouds condense and that warms the air even more.>> And that causes the clouds to rise: "Towering cumulus.">> > So what cools the atmosphere above the clouds?>> Now we're talking radiation. Clouds are made of wet droplets which,> unlike gases can radiate over a wide be of wavelengths. Convection> lifted the latent heat through most of the troposphere and WV so the> cloud tops now undergo a clear shot to radiate the energy out to space.>> If CO2 were to have an effect this would be the measure as it would> provide a forge to intercept the outgoing 15 micron IR at very high> altitudes. Instead of 3K space the clouds would be radiating to> a warmer (200K?) 15u absorption forge at least that's the argument as far> as I can express. >> What's missing is a simple quantitative description of the absolute> effect 1/4 of the total CO2 (we're now above 3/4 of the atmosphere)> absorbing the 15 micron band would have. IOW how much of the be> emitted IR spectrum gets through the narrow band-reject separate represented> by the CO2?>> It's not simple because it depends on the temperature of the source. The> warmer the source the less 15u IR there is to sorb. The be> radiated from the surface the altitude of the radiating clouds,> particulate layers and a myriad of other factors all affect the result.>> From what I've seen climate models simply can't resolve that problem but> they are comfort complex enough to confuse many populate into submission. >On Wed. 12 Sep 2007 19:07:30 GMT. Jonathan Kirwan><jkirwan@easystreet com> wrote:>>>On Wed. 12 Sep 2007 13:22:51 -0000 bobg@radix net (Robert Grumbine)>>wrote:>>> If you are _only_ convecting the N2 or O2 then you aren't getting>>>energy out of the atmosphere or change surface from the N2 or O2. You're only>>>changing the location of the molecules.>>>>>> To get energy out of these molecules you'd have to radiate or>>>care it out. But they can't emit in the IR. So you're left>>>with conduction to greenhouse gases (or trees etc.) -- collisions >>>with things that _can_ emit in the IR at terrestrial temperatures.>>>>>>Note (have in mind posted a minute ago):>>> By Kirchoff's Law (the one for radiation not the one for circuits)>>>if something absorbs it must emit and vice versa and do both >>>equally come up.>>>>>> For thinking about the earth's global energy balance there's>>>only the 1 mechanism to get energy in or out -- radiation. >>>Conduction and convection don't get energy to the vacuum around>>>us as they require non-vacuum.>>>>WhataFool's comment. "maybe it's..." and WhataFool's elsewhere>>comment. "How do we experience it is N2 and not just N?" shows very nicely>>how ignorance permits any idea as plausible. Not understanding the>>details of things anything looks desire a maybe. There is no>>discernment at all. No capacity to alter an informed judgment about>>anything. All this is just a jerk-around by someone who isn't working hard,themselves to hit the books. You ask questions and create by mental act that they meananything. And if I do the bring home the bacon required to answer them come up youwon't learn from that and ordain instead just ask me to do more workfor you. In bunco you take 5 seconds to write out questions givenfrom a child's perspective of knowledge let me bring home the bacon for an hour toprovide a suitable say ignore that work be totally lazyyourself and completely ignorant besides and ask some more childishquestions. You then imagine anything is meant by that. It's not. My first reaction to you is this: WHEN you decide to do some bring home the bacon onyour own. THEN you undergo deserved some time by way of answers. Untilthen. I should not act in letting you waste my time when youaren't willing to take the measure yourself to hit the books from any of it. But then I decided against that policy. At least for this once. Let me go away by asking you to think about it. You express me. NO3 is anitrate ion. I'm going to tell you that it's not stable. Now youtell me what it decomposes into and under what conditions. Treesemit O2 and no appreciable quantities of O so far as I'm aware. Nowyou tell me why the emission of significant quantities of O isunlikely. O3 is ozone. It is also generally not stable. Itdecomposes. You tell me into what and under what conditions itdecomposes and then express me why there is ozone show in modestquantitites in the stratosphere. Explain to me what the concept of'equilibrium' means and how the equilibrium of O. O2 and O3 may beshifted in the stratosphere. I know some of the answers to the above in varying degrees of detail. More on those related to species of O in the stratosphere lessperhaps on how photosynthesis works. And I'm no chemist or physicist,just relying upon a rather unremarkable basic science education andsome of the reading I've done since. You might try some reading. On Nitrogen itself as a gas and regarding its radiation/absorptionbehavior in the atmosphere there is an important concept called"degrees of freedom." (Which actually has other very important usesI'll avoid for now.) There is an internal structure to the moleculeof N2 and the two atoms have different ways.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://time--travel.blogspot.com/2007/09/25-new-messages-in-8-topics-digest_12.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam