Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

transmitted by letter to Arthur Young &
Company on January 17, 1973. The letter
also served as a means of relaying instruc-
tions dealing with the preparation of data
to be used internally within the Statistical
Validation Team for estimates of total reserves
to be made using alternative methods.

Or. January 29, 1973, Arthur Young & Company submitted the computer program for calculating the independent reserves estimate to Mr. William L. Monroe, who verified that the program performed the desired analysis using test data.

On February 2, 1973, independent reserves estimates for a majority of the fields in the certainty stratum, all fields in Module 1 and some additional fields were given personally to a representative of Arthur Young & Company for keypunching and initial processing. Data from the processing of the fields in Module 1 were requested. The last of the field reserves data in the certainty stratum was transmitted to Arthur Young & Company on February 5, 1973. All data were processed by Arthur Young & Company to estimate the total non-associated and associated gas reserves for the fields on the population list, and the preliminary results were delivered to Dr. Paul J. Root on February 27, 1973.

The Statistical Validation Team met on February 28, 1973, to discuss the information prepared by Arthur Young & Company to indicate the preliminary estimate of the total gas reserves, its precision, and to discuss whether processing of additional modules would be required to obtain a sufficiently accurate total reserve: estimate. The Team discussed the composition of the final report and made final assignment for its completion.

- 23.

In order to insure the accuracy of the individual reserves data used by Arthur Young & Company to calculate the total reserves estimate, the data were listed and delivered personally to Mr. Lawrence R. Mangen. After verification the final estimate of the reserves as reported herein was given to Dr. Paul J. Root on April 10, 1973.

The above excerpt from the report cf the Statistical Validation Tean is, in my opinion, an accurate account of its activities. I disagree with Dr. Pifer's recollections about the formulation of procedures for the Team as stated in his oral testimony before the Subcommittee. I can emphatically state that this was not done by the field teams supervisor, that the field teams supervisor was not from the University of Colorado at Boulder nor did anyone from the University of Colorado at Boulder participate in any phase of the National Gas Reserves Study.

Similarly, I disagree with Dr. Pifer's contention that he was not given the opportunity to make comments on the report of the Statistical Validation Team. A draft copy of the report was mailed to all members of the Statistical Validation Team on February 8, 1973, (A copy of the transmittal letter is shown in Exhibit H). The draft of the report was discussed at the meecing of the Statistical Validation Team held on February 18, 1973, which Dr. Pirer was unable to attend. Team members were advised that they could send additional comments to me. Another draft revised to reflect comments received from Team members at and subsequent to the meeting of February 18, 1973, was mailed to all Team members on March 20, 1973. (A copy of the transmittal letter is shown in Exhibit I). A special meeting attended by Mr. Wade P. Sewell, Mr. William L. Monroe, Dr. Howard W. Pifer III and me was held on April 4, 1973. One purpose of the meeting was to enable Dr. Pifer to discuss the draft report. Dr. Pifer offered no specific comments at that time but said he would forward his suggestions to us. It should be noted that other comments received as late as April 17, 1973, were accommodated in the report. Specific comments were never received from Dr. Pifer, although I feel that he was afforded ample time and opportunity to make them.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Many of the questions raised concerning the study are not confined within the framework of ghe objectives of the study and how those objectives were achieved. The purpose and scope are clearly defined in the Natural Gas Reserves Study as follows:

As specified in the Commission's Orders,
the reserves study program was designed to
yield an independent estimate of the total proven
gas reserves in the United States including
Alaska and the offshore areas as of December 31,
1970. Non-associated, associated and dissolved
gas were to be included in the total estimate.

The scope of the NGRS was limited to an
estimation of the magnitude of the proven
reserves and did not include an analysis of
deliverability. Similarly, no evaluation of
the total gas resource base nor forecasts of
gas to be discovered in the future were made.
Gas volumes which cannot be produced economically
now but which might only become available through
the application of new technology were not
included.

The report provided impartial, unbiased results in fulfillment of its expressed purpose. It presents, for the first time, a comprehensive estimate of the Nation's gas reserves mede independently and objectively by a Government agency. The results provide a useful basis for decisions by the Federal Fower Commission as well as other government agencies, the Congress and the public.

The views expressed herein are personal and do not constitute an official statement of this Commission.

BNG

Root, P.J:jeh

Cc:

Respectfully submitted,

/8/

Dr. Paul J. Root
Technical Director
National Gas Survey

Central Files/Interoffice Files/Mr. Joyce/Mr. Allen/Mr. Root
Each Member (Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly)
Mr. Halverson/Mr. Engman/Dr. Pifer

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

SHQIME ON ESTIENOTS OF THIS CRDER AND ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS, ANY, INCLUDING DELIVERY AS INDICATED. THIS & HEAL!
NECORATED UNDER AUTHORITY OF

-NT

GOVERNMENT OIL NJ.

DXCIPITCH THE OLLEGE STRUCT AS ON THE REVERSE. THIS COINERY CLOENIS 5500 KEGT UNSTAKT MIS CONTE NEDONTHS
OF THIS FUAM AND IS ISSUTƆ SUBJECT TO THE TCA'S AND CONDITIONS OF THE ABOVENSTVENED CONTRACT.
CALIVERY TO CUPONT CHICA
BEFORL

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

This document consitutes authority, terms and consitions whereby Dr. Howard W. Fifer, III, Harvard University Graduate School, Eston, Massachusetts (hereinafter called the Contractor) shall terve as a member of the Statistical Validation Team for the National Gas Surveys provide in the Federal Power Commission's Order of December 21, 1971. The contra shall be effective 1:47 9, 1972 and will terminate December 31, 1972.

REQUIREMENTS AND SCOPE OF WORK

[ocr errors]

1. The statistical validation team has the folds listed
responsibilities:

[ocr errors][merged small]

a. The statistical validation team ill prescribe the number of fields to be surveyed indeperdently a each A.GA. subcommittes area by size and age category in order to project a statistically valid reserve estimation with a reasonable degree of accuracy and certainty.

b. Sampling will be started on a minimum basis to test the
magnituse of deviation. If, in the initial field geserve
estitions, the standard deviation of the percentage

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »