The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[billvon]

Bullshit, billvon.

Yes, you are good at bullshit.
Once you are shown to be wrong about your latest prediction, as you were with your previous predictions, what excuse will you use?

-I wasn't wrong! We are all dead.
-I wasn't wrong! When I said "would not exceed" I meant "might exceed."
-That was the old Etp model. This is the Etq model, which is much better and 100% accurate, and we will see a 90% die-off of humanity before 2017.

 

[billvon]

What's the nature of this "apocalypse"?

From his posts:


"The real apocalypse will be a complete and total social collapse, the collapse of industrial civilization, along with a rapid 90% mass die off of the species."

"When we come off of the bumpy plateau of world oil production between now and 2015, we will experience a rapid and severe die off (90+%)."

"I can now predict the date of the onset of collapse with near absolute certainty: June of 2014. In other words, I am no longer attempting to predict the future. I am now stating that the collapse of industrial civilization has already begun! And I can prove it."

"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." (Posted Jan 2013)

 

[Futilitist]

Brilliant.



---Futilitist

 

[krash661]

See what I mean? No one here accepts that oil use drives GDP!

i never said or claimed such a thing

Understanding this simple concept is essential to comprehending the Etp model.

how can anyone comprehend it when you state there's no specific formula ?
how was this massively important ffucking line plotted to begin with ?

All I ever see here is knee jerk denial by people who care more about economics than science.

well asking for the formula is science, but it is also mathematics.

.

 

[krash661]

I just answered that. Once again:

The two Maximum affordable price curves labeled 71% (black), and 62% (light blue) are skewed logistic curves. There is no explicit mathematical equation to describe them. They are derived numerically, and the dots represent values for specific years. The 71% curve is the maximum theoretical energy that can be extracted from a unit of 37.5° API crude. Its value is derived from the combustion equations of hydrocarbons. The 62% curve is the average energy extracted from the same hydrocarbon by the end user. It passes through the ETP derived price curve at the inflection point of the ETP curve in year 2012. 2012 was the energy half way point for petroleum production. It was the year when it required one half of the energy content of petroleum to produce the petroleum, and its products.

The individual points are generated from the equation:

$/barrel = (Energy delivered - ETP value/ BTU/$) * 42.

Energy delivered = 140,000 BTU/gal *0.62 (140,000 BTU/gal - the energy content of 37.5° API crude)

ETP value is derived from the ETP function

BTU/dollars is taken from the BTU/dollars graph - Graph# 12


---Futilitist

ahh so it's inaccurate statistics plotted on a graph. i see.

 

[Daecon]

From his posts:


"The real apocalypse will be a complete and total social collapse, the collapse of industrial civilization, along with a rapid 90% mass die off of the species."

"When we come off of the bumpy plateau of world oil production between now and 2015, we will experience a rapid and severe die off (90+%)."

"I can now predict the date of the onset of collapse with near absolute certainty: June of 2014. In other words, I am no longer attempting to predict the future. I am now stating that the collapse of industrial civilization has already begun! And I can prove it."

"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." (Posted Jan 2013)

Darn it. I always miss the important events.

There'll be another apocalypse soon, right? I gather that they're like busses.

 

[Futilitist]

Trolls.

They say it is best to ignore them.

I am making a sincere effort to have a serious discussion on a site that purports to be a science forum. I invite the readers to decide for themselves if this site lives up to that designation. Please compare my serious, well reasoned arguments, and the general quality of my posts vs. the lame, sloppy, disingenuous arguments from various posters on this thread. Draw your own conclusions.

Meanwhile, here is some more information to help people better understand the Etp model, and maybe get this thread back on track:

"Only a portion of the world's endogenous petroleum reserve possess the capacity to provide a beneficial component. Determining a reasonably accurate estimate for that quantity has perplexed analysis since petroleum first became a valuable commercial product. The principal barrier to determining which of the world's 4,300 billion barrels qualifies as being potentially serviceable has rested on the lack of a stable, measurable criteria. Cost has always been considered the Holly Grail of oil production, but cost itself has morphed into its own elusive element. By the time the great Middle Eastern fields came online a production cost of $3 per barrel was considered untenable. Today it is more than $100. As the serviceable portion of the world's petroleum reserve depletes, the cost of producing it has increased in lock step. Obviously, another metric is needed.

The most reasonable parameter by which to judge petroleum's utility is its primary contributing component - energy. Unlike the dollar, an energy unit is a quantity that does not change with time. It also has the advantage of being a developed, mature science, and having a large informational base to describe it. Exergy analysis had its beginnings in the evolution of steam power, more than a hundred and fifty years ago. The principal advantage of using exergy analysis is in its application of the most fundamental laws known to physics; the First and Second Law. They provide constraints that can not be violated!

The constraints imposed by the First and Second Law restrict upper and lower limits. The 99,400 BTU/gal limit that the study shows as being extractable from petroleum is an upper limit. In all probability the value is somewhat less. P140 is limited by EG and the entropy production of the PPS. Its value can not be more, but it could be less. This implies that the ETP model is a "best case" scenario.

Empirical estimates, however, indicate that it is not far from the mark. One example is the EIA's estimate for petroleum refining energy costs, which they give as 16,300 BTU/$ of finished product. If calculated at $3.00 per gallon for 2012, this produces 48,900 BTU/gal. With 48,000 fields around the world under production, the industry is very competitive. It therefore follows that average extraction costs are close to sale price. Employing the BTU/$ method, the 2012 production energy costs at the well head can be estimated at 14,735 BTU/gal. Distribution costs of raw material, and finished product are estimated at $42/barrel, giving 6,365 BTU/gal. The extraction, processing and distribution energy costs for 2012, when summed, equal 70,000 BTU/gal; which is what the ETP model predicts. It is therefore concluded that the petroleum industry is operating at an efficiency level that is close to its
theoretical limit.

For the petroleum industry to be functioning at a very high level of efficiency should not be surprising. It is a hundred and fifty year old industry, and it has developed a very advanced level of technology. Being producer of the world's most valuable, and critical extractive commodity gave it access to a significant portion of the world's capital inventory. Until 2012, even though it was experiencing declining conventional crude production, it did not experience declining nominal revenue. The price curve assured that the revenue decline for the industry would not begin until the point of maximum consumer affordability was reached. The non-energy goods producing sector of the economy was contracting because of the lower quantity of energy that was being delivered to it, while the energy producing sector, was in dollar terms, continuing to grow. This ceased to be the situation in 2012 at $104/ barrel.

The 2012 energy half way point initiated a major change in the petroleum production function. It began a process where the end consumer was no longer able to acquire all the petroleum that the industry produced. More of the energy from petroleum was being committed to the production of petroleum than was being delivered to the consumer. This precipitated the 2014 price decline that reduced prices by 50%. The energy delivered to the end consumer will continue to decline, and the end consumer maximum affordability will decline with it. It will be necessary for the industry to reduce production to compensate. The highest cost production fields will continually be shut in as the price falls below their operating minimum.

The ETP model's predicted rapid decline event is in opposition to the contemporary assumption that production will phase out slowly. The slow decline scenario is known as "sliding down Hubbert's curve". Implied in this belief is the assumption that all barrels of petroleum were made equal in quality, and will remain so in time. Of course this conflicts with the Second Law, and thus can not be an accurate representation of the situation. All barrels were not made with an API of 30-45°, nor is the energy needed to extract, process and distribution them the same over time. It has to increase.

The energy increase that is occurring in petroleum production insures that substitutes for conventional crude will be phased out before the average barrel of conventional crude reaches the dead state. As the energy to produce petroleum increased so did the price to the end consumer. This phase of the price cycle has now ended, and producers will now concentrate on cutting production costs. This will include the very high cost process of replacing reserves that have been extracted.

As the price increased during the prior 2012 cycle, demand for finished products by the non energy goods producing sector of the economy did not diminish. This apparent violation of the Supply/Demand principal occurred because up until 2012 the use of petroleum returned more revenue to the user than it cost them. The use of petroleum was energy positive for the end user; it required less to extract it, and produce its products than it delivered to the economy. After 2012 that was reversed, and demand increases could only result from the energy producing sector. As production begins to decline so also will demand. To keep the the price to the end consumer as affordable as possible refineries will be forced to limit the use of substitutes which are more costly to process. Supply and demand; the supply and demand of energy will limit the extent to which substitutes like extra heavy crude, and shale oil will be used in the future.

The reduced availability of petroleum products, resulting from a reduced per unit value, and a reduced per unit energy delivery ability will have an all encompassing impact on every aspect of contemporary society."
~BW Hill



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

1. There is no specific equation for the second curve.
2. Since there is no specific equation for the second curve, it is not in the book.
3. I am not refusing to provide anything.

That is what I expected, thank you. That's a puzzling omission by the author: he's declined to include the details of his key piece of work. It appears the book did not provide a look behind the wizard's curtain afterall! Let's dig into that bit by bit:

The two Maximum affordable price curves labeled 71% (black), and 62% (light blue) are skewed logistic curves. There is no explicit mathematical equation to describe them. They are derived numerically, and the dots represent values for specific years. The 71% curve is the maximum theoretical energy that can be extracted from a unit of 37.5° API crude. Its value is derived from the combustion equations of hydrocarbons. The 62% curve is the average energy extracted from the same hydrocarbon by the end user....

The individual points are generated from the equation:

$/barrel = (Energy delivered - ETP value/ BTU/$) * 42.

Energy delivered = 140,000 BTU/gal *0.62 (140,000 BTU/gal - the energy content of 37.5° API crude)

ETP value is derived from the ETP function

BTU/dollars is taken from the BTU/dollars graph - Graph# 12

Yes, that is indeed where the missing equation should be, but isn't. I saw that the first time you posted about the "ETP Model" and pointed out that it was missing. It's the source of the problem we're discussing. Thanks for getting it for me so I didn't have to go back and find it again. What is odd about it is that these two sentences appear to contradict each other:

There is no explicit mathematical equation to describe them... [the Maximum Affordable Price Curves]

The individual points are generated from the equation:

$/barrel = (Energy delivered - ETP value/ BTU/$) * 42.

So he says there is no ("explicit"?) equation, then provides an equation...albeit with the key piece missing(which should be its own equation)!

But the entire passage screams "Handwaving!" I see the following issues, at least:

1. Obviously, the first sentence begs the question: if there is no equation, then how, exactly were they generated? Next, it says:

The two Maximum affordable price curves labeled 71% (black), and 62% (light blue) are skewed logistic curves.

2. Logistic curves have equations. What is the equation?

They are derived numerically...

3. What does derived numerically mean (show me!)? It implies a curve fit from some data. But even a curve fit has an equation - does he not understand how to have Excel show the equation when he does a curve fit? Also, of course: give me the data it is "derived numerically" from.

The 71% curve is the maximum theoretical energy that can be extracted from a unit of 37.5° API crude. Its value is derived from the combustion equations of hydrocarbons....
Energy delivered = 140,000 BTU/gal *0.62 (140,000 BTU/gal - the energy content of 37.5° API crude)

That's an intriguing nugget. But there are a couple of problems in that:
4. The maximum theoretical energy that can be extracted from a unit of crude is a constant. It doesn't change over time, so it can't be a curve -- there must be much more to the curve than just that.
5. "Maximum theoretical energy" must have units like Joules or BTUS -- the graph is in dollars. Did he take curves with different units and lay them over top of each other? Or did he just misspeak and there is really more to it than that?
6. The energy content of crude not only does it not change over time except insofar as its usage will change, but it's often above 71% and you don't need to dig into the combustion equations of hydrocarbons to get it.

$/barrel = (Energy delivered - ETP value/ BTU/$) * 42.

7. That's an equation. So does it follow an equation or not? Obviously, if time factors into this anywhere, it would be in a changing "ETP Value", which is obviously the part we are missing. It should be it's own equation in the form:
ETP Value = -L/(1-e^-k(x-x0))
Sorry, I don't do latex, but you can find the form of the equation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
All we need is the constants and if he's having trouble extracting them from an Excel curve fit, I can show him how to do it.
8. Where does the 42 come from? Arbitrarily selected number to make it fit what he wants it to fit?
9. "BTU/$" appears to be unit correction inserted to cover the fact that "energy" and "$/barrel" don't match. You can't do that in math. You can't just arbitrarily change the units in an equation by sticking in extra unit signs that aren't associated with values in the equation.

So, this has all the hallmarks of handwaving nonsense generated by someone who is woefully inept at math and graphical analysis of data. I do believe you that he apparently didn't include the "ETP Value" equation, but since this entire effort is supposed to be about "The ETP Model", he's left-out of his book the very punch line of his joke! It would be like Einstein leaving e=mc^2 out of his book on Special Relativity (caveat: the real equation is more than that)!

So now what, futilitist? We're still left with not having access to the details of the key claim. We still don't have access to "The ETP Model" itself! Whether that's an equation, a curve fit that he couldn't figure out how to generate the equation for, or a piece of spaghetti that he traced around, we still need to see it.

Of course the price of oil is, in fact, directly related to the energy required to produce it. How could it be otherwise?

Claim as a question aside, you should be able to see clearly from the fact that oil prices dropped by half in a very short period of time that it is not closely tied to the energy required to produce it. It is much closer tied to supply and demand economics. How do I know that? Because the energy required to produce the oil did not drop by half in a few weeks -- indeed, the whole point of Peak Oil is that the energy required to produce the oil is rising, not falling: As I said before, the data you are using to support your latest claim of the apocalypse is pointed in the wrong direction: it should be pointed up, not down. But you did that throughout your previous incarnations of this issue: up is down and down is up and an improving economy is a worsening economy and all roads lead back to Peak Oil even if they lead away from it.

That, by the way, is an example of me understanding the ETP Model better than you do, even though neither of us have seen it. I understand how it must work, at least in broad strokes, and you don't.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Or, y'know, you could just give a straight answer. I'm going to assume "zombie" apocalypse.

While that seems to be the current leading fad, I'm much more partial to the Asteroid Apocalypse ("Deep Impact", not "Armageddon").

 

[Russ_Watters]

how can anyone comprehend it when you state there's no specific formula ?
how was this massively important fucking line plotted to begin with ?

 

[Daecon]

Ah, the one with Frodo and not Arwen.

 

[Futilitist]

That is what I expected, thank you. That's a puzzling omission by the author: he's declined to include the details of his key piece of work. It appears the book did not provide a look behind the wizard's curtain afterall! Let's dig into that bit by bit:

Yes, that is indeed where the missing equation should be, but isn't. I saw that the first time you posted about the "ETP Model" and pointed out that it was missing. It's the source of the problem we're discussing. Thanks for getting it for me so I didn't have to go back and find it again. What is odd about it is that these two sentences appear to contradict each other:

So he says there is no ("explicit"?) equation, then provides an equation...albeit with the key piece missing(which should be its own equation)!

But the entire passage screams "Handwaving!" I see the following issues, at least:

1. Obviously, the first sentence begs the question: if there is no equation, then how, exactly were they generated? Next, it says:

2. Logistic curves have equations. What is the equation?

3. What does derived numerically mean (show me!)? It implies a curve fit from some data. But even a curve fit has an equation - does he not understand how to have Excel show the equation when he does a curve fit?

That's an intriguing nugget. But there are a couple of problems in that:
4. The maximum theoretical energy that can be extracted from a unit of crude is a constant. It doesn't change over time, so it can't be a curve -- there must be much more to the curve than just that.
5. "Maximum theoretical energy" must have units like Joules or BTUS -- the graph is in dollars. Did he take curves with different units and lay them over top of each other? Or did he just misspeak and there is really more to it than that?
6. The energy content of crude not only does it not change over time except insofar as its usage will change, but it's often above 71% and you don't need to dig into the combustion equations of hydrocarbons to get it.

7. That's an equation. So does it follow an equation or not? Obviously, if time factors into this anywhere, it would be in a changing "ETP Value", which is obviously the part we are missing. It should be it's own equation in the form:
ETP Value = -L/(1-e^-k(x-x0))
Sorry, I don't do latex, but you can find the form of the equation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
All we need is the constants and if he's having trouble extracting them from an Excel curve fit, I can show him how to do it.
8. Where does the 42 come from? Arbitrarily selected number to make it fit what he wants it to fit?
9. "BTU/$" appears to be unit correction inserted to cover the fact that "energy" and "$/barrel" don't match. You can't do that in math. You can't just arbitrarily change the units in an equation by sticking in extra unit signs that aren't associated with values in the equation.

So, this has all the hallmarks of handwaving nonsense generated by someone who is woefully inept at math and graphical analysis of data. I do believe you that he apparently didn't include the "ETP Value" equation, but since this entire effort is supposed to be about "The ETP Model", he's left-out of his book the very punch line of his joke! It would be like Einstein leaving e=mc^2 out of his book on Special Relativity (caveat: the real equation is more than that)!

So now what, futilitist? We're still left with not having access to the details of the key claim. We still don't have access to "The ETP Model" itself! Whether that's an equation, a curve fit that he couldn't figure out how to generate the equation for, or a piece of spaghetti that he traced around, we still need to see it.

Claim as a question aside, you should be able to see clearly from the fact that oil prices dropped by half in a very short period of time that it is not closely tied to the energy required to produce it. It is much closer tied to supply and demand economics. How do I know that? Because the energy required to produce the oil did not drop by half in a few weeks -- indeed, the whole point of Peak Oil is that the energy required to produce the oil is rising, not falling: As I said before, the data you are using to support your latest claim of the apocalypse is pointed in the wrong direction: it should be pointed up, not down. But you did that throughout your previous incarnations of this issue: up is down and down is up and an improving economy is a worsening economy and all roads lead back to Peak Oil even if they lead away from it.

That, by the way, is an example of me understanding the ETP Model better than you do, even though neither of us have seen it. I understand how it must work, at least in broad strokes, and you don't.

You are just doing your disingenuous bullshit again, Russ. You are a typical peak oil denier.

I explained all of this already on the last page. You are wasting my time.

I am putting you on ignore.



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Does anyone have any serious comments?



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

Incidentally, for your sake I'm glad you got the book for free, because I know what it feels like to buy a book and have it not contain the very thing that it is supposed to be about. I recently bought a retirement planning book that turned-out to be just a bunch of organizational checklists, but included no actual retirement planning advice! Boy, was I pissed!

 

[Russ_Watters]

Ah, the one with Frodo and not Arwen.

Yeah, that's the one. Arwen is hot, so she wasn't the problem. The problem is that the entire movie was just one long music video for her dad. And while her dad's music is great and she's hot in his other music videos, music videos are very weak on plot.

 

[Russ_Watters]

You are just doing your disingenuous bullshit again, Russ.

I explained all of this on the last page. You are wasting my time.

We're all on the same page, Futilitist and none of us like the page we are on or the fact that it is wasting our time. The main difference is that while you are blaming me for that page, it's the page itself that is at fault for not containing the information it is supposed to contain. I didn't write the page in question, this Hills guy did.

I will say this, though: you're welcome. I'm sure when you first read that, it confused the hell out of you. Your anger is a sign of understanding: you now understand the problem with the book, which is why you are so angry about it. So you're welcome for me helping you by explaining to you all the things that are wrong with it so you know that you aren't stupid for not understanding it, it's just a bad piece of work. And I know you so hoped it would pan-out, but it didn't and you should thank me for helping you recognize that, not blame me for causing it to fail -- I didn't cause it to fail, of course, it failed on its own. But when people get angry and lose their shit, they tend to spew it on everyone in sight. So we're still cool (some of us cooler than others...), I don't blame you for being so upset about it even though it was a positive/growth experience for you. Growth can be painful.

I am putting you on ignore.

Vexatious indeed! What ever will you do if you put on ignore the only person who is engaging you with much intellectual discussion? Oh, I know: get into a pissing war with everyone else who long ago decided it wasn't worth the effort to spend half an hour on a post (guess I'm the sucker). I guess it's ok: when threads degenerate because the OP won't engage in discussion, they get where they are meant to go faster: Cesspool or closed.

 

[Futilitist]

I guess it's ok: when threads degenerate because the OP won't engage in discussion, they get where they are meant to go faster: Cesspool or closed.

How convenient. Almost like that was the plan from the beginning.

We're all on the same page, Futilitist and none of us like the page we are on or the fact that it is wasting our time.

Who is we? Who is us?

The word conspiracy comes from the Latin “conspirare” which means “to agree, unite, plot,” and “com” which means “together” + “spirare” meaning “to breathe.” So, literally “conspire” means “to breathe together.”

This place has an agenda. This is not a real science forum.



---Futilitist

 

[Daecon]

This place has an agenda. This is not a real science forum.

Bye, then.

I assume this means that you're leaving, right?

 

[river]

Bye, then.

I assume this means that you're leaving, right?

Why would you like this dea?

 

[billvon]

How convenient. Almost like that was the plan from the beginning.

How are you replying to him? You said he was on ignore. Another lie, perhaps?

Who is we? Who is us?

Rational people.

This place has an agenda. This is not a real science forum.

You will find all science forums do have an agenda, and it has to do with science.

Here's a forum you might find more to your liking. They will not make petty demands upon you like "show the equations you are basing your argument on" or "do the math."

http://postapocalypticforum.com/