Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As developing countries industrialize and rich countries continue to devour power, global energy demand is projected to increase 60% in the next 25-30 years, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Fossil fuels will continue to dominate, estimated to account for 85% of future demand. Even if the Saudi Kingdom pumps to full capacity, currently rated at 15 million barrels per day, it is anticipated that oil markets will face continuing high demand, which is to say that the Excess Demand for Oil (EDO) characterizing world oil markets since 1973, will continue to grow. Assuming current rates of consumption, U.S. reserves are forecast to last only another nine years, as domestic production in the U.S. continues a decades-long decline. This paper, which forms part of a comprehensive study to develop economic models based on futuristic energy pricing policies, increasing globalization and better understanding of environmental impacts, analyzes oil prices over the last two decades as a basis for discussing four principal scenarios for predicting a general oil-price trend for the coming two decades. Concluding that a major supply-alleviating breakthrough from some other non-fossil-fuel alternative is unlikely, it therefore rules out the "Optimistic Model" scenario of a long-term steady-state for oil prices. After carefully considering the exploration efforts to increase the international reserves through new discoveries on the one hand, and the different implemented techniques of improved oil recovery (IOR) for maximizing production from discovered reservoirs on the other, it concludes instead that any of the other three models (two of them categorized as "Realistic") could emerge sometime in the next 3-5 years as the trend-setter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".