[p2p-research] List of articles on Indium/Gallium Supplies

[marc fawzi]

minor typo in last para:

"so production collapses but that doesn't mean resource IS depleted."


On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:46 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you look at the data, the author points out the fact that the URR
> [ultimate recoverable resource] is much higher than his estimate
> (which is based on the USGS production data alone) in case of Gallium
> but he decides not to includes the reserves base because he mistrusts
> the accuracy of the reserves data, which are also supplied by USGS,
> citing "high uncertainty of the data for gallium."
>
> By deciding to use the production data alone all he is able to predict
> is the depletion (or rather the "collapse") of production, not the
> depletion of gallium itself. There is one humongous difference here. I
> hope you understand.
>
> He says that "In principle, the peaks that we have reported could be
> interpreted as due to factors other than depletion."
>
> (sorry but I personally find it funny)
>
> How can you predict depletion of a resource based on production data alone?
>
> Furthermore, the application of logistic regression to survey data
> itself (to predict collapse of production) is not exposed in the
> article and could contain some crucial errors, i.e. where is the SAS
> model or where is the model design in general?
>
> For example, if the production volume shows periodicity where the
> period is known then that takes a different kind of logistic
> regression model than if the period is unknown, and yet another model
> if it's non-periodic. So I am not sure if he's applying logistic
> regression correctly (for collapse of production) given that I don't
> see the calculation.
>
> This also implies that by not discussing the possibility that the
> production volume (the detailed data not the cumulative data) may be
> periodic his prediction of the collapse may not only be entirely
> flawed (in the design of the logistic regression model) but also
> obstructing a significant truth about production data in ecology and
> mineralogy, which is that production peaks and collapses in periods
> (up to the Feigenbaum constant, i.e. r < 3.6) and then it goes into
> chaos.
>
> What causes the periodicity and eventually chaos is that the
> production rate exceeds the sustainability limit for the given
> production technology and/or the sustainability limit of the market
> (he does not supply demand as another possibility rather than
> depletion of the resource) so production collapses but that doesn't
> mean resource is not depleted. The production grows again when more
> efficient technology is developed for extraction or when the market
> swings back into demand mode (from over supply.)  In fact that is what
> may be happening with oil, too. We're reaching the first point of
> bifurcation (the point at the which the quantitative behavior of the
> system changes abruptly)  but it does not mean that more efficient
> technology won't make deep oil reserves cheap again which will cause a
> come back in oil production (after the collapse).
>
> The analysis given by that paper is silly at best.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Tere Vadén <tere.vaden at uta.fi> wrote:
>> There is some quantitative analysis here, as regards Gallium ("According
>> to a logistic fit of the data, it peaked in the year 2000 (Fig. 5)")
>> (and other minerals) though not explicitely related to solar:
>>
>> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3086
>>
>> marc fawzi wrote:
>>> I have not seen a numerical analysis of the "time and scale" problem
>>> as it applies to solar energy.
>>>
>>
>