Some Insights into Helge's latest projection
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Vince Taylor
Jun 9, 2011, 8:09:51 PM6/9/11
to Mike Anderson, Dan Porter, Brad Valentine, JAG Group, Mike Liquori, Jere Melo, John A. Helms, Kathy Bailey, Vince Taylor, linda perkins, Forest Tilley, Nakamura, Gary, George Gentry, russ Henly, Eng, Helge, Lynn Web
Dear JAG members,
We received Helge's latest projection just yesterday, and I was away yesterday; so I just got to look at it today. Therefore, I was only able to do a very cursory analysis. Still, this is enough to show that his projections continue to penalize JAG harvests unrelated to JAG recommendations.
In the latest projection, he modified his January 15, 2011 projection (MF-IV) by modelling 1/2 of the Matrix using JAG prescriptions and 1/2 using the 2008 MP prescriptions. He found some increase in projected harvest rates in the first five decades, but harvest rates are still significantly below the Option A projection.
The attached chart shows why Helge's modeling assumptions lead to such low harvest rates for the JAG recommendations. Basically, Helge assumes that JAG recommendation cause harvest rates as a percentage of growth and inventory to be far below those projection under Option A. The JAG did not recommend such low harvest rates; thus Helge's latest projections have no more relevance to understanding the JAG recommendation than his earlier ones.
Perhaps Russ can make copies of the chart for our meeting tomorrow.
Vince
We received Helge's latest projection just yesterday, and I was away yesterday; so I just got to look at it today. Therefore, I was only able to do a very cursory analysis. Still, this is enough to show that his projections continue to penalize JAG harvests unrelated to JAG recommendations.
In the latest projection, he modified his January 15, 2011 projection (MF-IV) by modelling 1/2 of the Matrix using JAG prescriptions and 1/2 using the 2008 MP prescriptions. He found some increase in projected harvest rates in the first five decades, but harvest rates are still significantly below the Option A projection.
The attached chart shows why Helge's modeling assumptions lead to such low harvest rates for the JAG recommendations. Basically, Helge assumes that JAG recommendation cause harvest rates as a percentage of growth and inventory to be far below those projection under Option A. The JAG did not recommend such low harvest rates; thus Helge's latest projections have no more relevance to understanding the JAG recommendation than his earlier ones.
Perhaps Russ can make copies of the chart for our meeting tomorrow.
Vince
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages