The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[Futilitist]

Hi Everyone.

I have independently confirmed the validity of the Etp model.

http://peakoil.com/forums/the-etp-model-q-a-t70563-180.html#p1262220

"Thanks Pops.

I agree we should stay on topic.

Hi again BW. Thanks for the kind words. The level of knee-jerk hostility that I received when trying to honestly discuss the Etp model at peakoilbarrel helped convince me the Etp model must, in fact, be valid!

The physics of the model made instant sense to me. But when I first saw the Etp model, I was a little frustrated that I couldn't see the Etp curves over the more familiar daily or weekly oil charts I have been staring at for so many years. So I created this graph:

I call this one, "The End of the Oil Age".

When I added the 100 week moving average, I noticed some strange angular moves in the vicinity of the intersection of the two Etp curves. I began to wonder if this might be a sign of what is referred to in non-linear systems dynamics as "squealing". This squealing happens when a system is about to experience a major phase change. If these strange price moves really are squealing, it might constitute independent empirical evidence of the validity of the Etp model.

It is basically an observable Etp signature.

I decided to take a closer look:

Here is a 50 week moving average. The volatile angular changes very clearly parallel the Etp curves.

Here I graphed various moving averages and found more evidence of strange angular prices moves everywhere!

This inspired me to produce a detailed set of weekly moving averages:

I call this one, "The Dragon in the Sky".

In terms of non-linear systems dynamics, the moving averages can be visualized of as a kind of rubber sheet. The 2008 oil spike didn't last long enough to drag the slower moving averages up very much, and the price collapsed back. But the next spike lasted long enough to drag more of the slower moving averages up above the Etp maximum price curve (i.e. outside the physics limit). The whole system became massively unstable. The resultant chaotic phase change basically folded the rubber sheet completely over itself!

The graph is also reminiscent of water circling a drain.

This is a preliminary sketch of a non-linear systems dynamics analysis, with the two Etp curves as strange attractors. The symmetries on either side of the singularity (Etp curve intersection point) are quite striking, and give some possible insight into the coming chaotic price moves.

I think the whole thing could be simulated in fluid dynamics, with two counter rotating cylinders that each follow the Etp curve geometry. Such a set up, with the correct physics analogs, might be able to produce a very accurate price curve, down to approximating the detailed daily and weekly swings.

Here is a detailed set of daily moving averages. The twisting and mirror symmetry about the singularity are very visible.

I submit that all of this empirical evidence cannot be mere a coincidence. The price of oil is determined by the laws of physics, not supply and demand.

The Etp model is confirmed."
-----------

And it looks like the oil price and the world stock markets are starting to get the message.



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

Will you be back again next year to tout a new prediction, without acknowledging the failure of this one, just like the last two years?

 

[Dr_Toad]

The price of oil is determined by the laws of physics, not supply and demand.

Trolling, eh?

 

[Futilitist]

Hi again, Russ.

1) I don't believe you have had enough time to grasp the full significance of my post, yet here you are with a knee jerk comment. Nice.

2) I have been right all along.

3) I seriously doubt any of us will be posting here a year from now.



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Hey Dr_Toad.

If the price of oil were really determined only by supply and demand, how do you explain the exponential rising pattern of the oil price shown in the graph above?



---Futilitist

 

[billvon]

2) I have been right all along

So you believe that the world's economy has already collapsed? Interesting. Given that, why should anyone take you seriously?

If the price of oil were really determined only by supply and demand, how do you explain the exponential rising pattern of the oil price shown in the graph above?

High demand, low supply. Basic economics.

 

[Russ_Watters]

1) I don't believe you have had enough time to grasp the full significance of my post, yet here you are with a knee jerk comment.

Yes. Perhaps if I get bored later I'll wade through it. For now, though, why bother? You've proven yourself quite unable to produce rational arguments, so I have no reason to assume this is any different.

2) I have been right all along.

Given that your predictions have changed every time you rebooted, that's quite a claim. In particular:

3) I seriously doubt any of us will be posting here a year from now.

Given that you've predicted that three years in a row now, how are you feeling about the fact that you can still post today, despite predicting that you wouldn't be able to?

 

[Russ_Watters]

Hey Dr_Toad.

If the price of oil were really determined only by supply and demand, how do you explain the exponential rising pattern of the oil price shown in the graph above?

1. It's a pretty poor fit.
2. To the extent that it does come close to fitting, is because it is mostly a fit of inflation, not the price of oil.

I gotta tell you though, that fourth graph ("Dragon in the Sky") is really cool. Almost artistic.

 

[origin]

Given that you've predicted that three years in a row now, how are you feeling about the fact that you can still post today, despite predicting that you wouldn't be able to?

Most people who make a prediction that does not come true would reevaluate their methods and logic, Futilitist simple pushes out his failed prediction to the next year and then the next year and.....

 

[Russ_Watters]

Most people who make a prediction that does not come true would reevaluate their methods and logic, Futilitist simple pushes out his failed prediction to the next year and then the next year and.....

What I don't get is that I haven't seen where I can buy his book -- most people who do that do it so they can re-publish.

 

[Futilitist]

What I don't get is that I haven't seen where I can buy his book -- most people who do that do it so they can re-publish.

I am writing it now. You are helping. The book is on mechanisms of denial. I think even dry psychology books are better with an addition of a little humor. Thanks for your contribution so far.



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

So you believe that the world's economy has already collapsed? Interesting. Given that, why should anyone take you seriously?

Why should anyong take you seriously, billvon? You have a real talent for misrepresenting everything I say so you can argue with straw men. Of course I don't believe the world's economy has already collapsed. I believe it is in the process of collapsing.



---Futilitist

 

[billvon]

You have a real talent for misrepresenting everything I say so you can argue with straw men. Of course I don't believe the world's economy has already collapsed. I believe it is in the process of collapsing.

That's not what you said. You said:
"After 2015, we will cross over into permanent depletion. That means about a 4-8 percent shortfall every year from then on. That is up to 2X as bad as the first oil shock in the 1970's, over and over again, every year. Hypothetically, gasoline will be 12−24 a gallon the first year, and 24−48 a gallon the next, except that the economy will completely collapse before that can happen."

Are you still claiming that you were "right all along?"

 

[Russ_Watters]

I am writing it now. You are helping.

Lol, awesome! Glad to be of help! I may even buy a copy!

Another question, Futilitist: Did you plagiarize the OP?

 

[Russ_Watters]

That's not what you said. You said:
"After 2015, we will cross over into permanent depletion. That means about a 4-8 percent shortfall every year from then on. That is up to 2X as bad as the first oil shock in the 1970's, over and over again, every year. Hypothetically, gasoline will be 12−24 a gallon the first year, and 24−48 a gallon the next, except that the economy will completely collapse before that can happen."

Are you still claiming that you were "right all along?"

Just to be clear: that post was written in January of 2013. So in 2013 we should have seen the start of the shortfall-caused spikes. $12-24 a gallon should have been by mid-2014.

Here's more context, from Jan 5, 2013:

This year we are expected to begin oil depletion. Estimates of depletion rates vary, but somewhere between 4% and 8% seems reasonable based on known depletion rates of existing wells. That is like having a 1970s style oil shock X2 every year from here on. Year after year.

In the first oil shock (1973), oil rose by a factor of 4. So twice that would be a factor of 8. So we should have seen $400 a barrel oil in 2014, by futilitist's prediction.

 

[billvon]

Just to be clear: that post was written in January of 2013. So in 2013 we should have seen the start of the shortfall-caused spikes. $12-24 a gallon should have been by mid-2014.

And $24-48 by mid 2015. So he's only off by a factor of ten.

Of course he also claimed that a worldwide economic collapse would begin two years ago, with global unrest starting in the summer of 2013 followed by a massive (and inevitable) economic collapse.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Of course he also claimed that a worldwide economic collapse would begin two years ago, with global unrest starting in the summer of 2013 followed by a massive (and inevitable) economic collapse.

Yes. But given the price spike and collapse in 2008, followed by the Great Recession in 2009, that really would have been the best time to publish his book. The further we get away from that volatility (which doesn't come close to the oil shocks in the 1970s), the harder it gets to keep them linked.

 

[arfa brane]

Ok, you have a plot which is the real part of the equation over time, where do the other two curves come from? How did you build your model, what does it assume, etc.

 

[Futilitist]

That's not what you said. You said:
"After 2015, we will cross over into permanent depletion. That means about a 4-8 percent shortfall every year from then on. That is up to 2X as bad as the first oil shock in the 1970's, over and over again, every year. Hypothetically, gasoline will be 12−24 a gallon the first year, and 24−48 a gallon the next, except that the economy will completely collapse before that can happen."
Are you still claiming that you were "right all along?"

Yes. My statement above is basically correct. After 2015 we will very likely cross over into permanent depletion. That is about to happen when the frackers go bust.

I said that because of depletion, the oil price would have to "Hypothetically" rise to levels that are clearly impossible. I did not say that those prices would ever be reached.

Learn to read. And stop trying to misrepresent everything I say.

Besides, this thread is about the Etp model. I had no knowledge of this model at the time I made the quote you keep harping on. I did not know then that we had already reached the Max Affordable oil price, and thus that the price would drop instead of rising further before finally falling. We have more information since that quote and so we can fine tune the forecast. That is how science works.



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Lol, awesome! Glad to be of help! I may even buy a copy!

Another question, Futilitist: Did you plagiarize the OP?

No. Of course not. You are so insulting. The OP is pulled from my confirmation of the Etp model at peakoil.com, on the Etp model thread. I post there as Whatever, but I sign my posts Futilitist, just like here. Follow the link. You might learn something.



---Futilitist