The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[Russ_Watters]

Liar. I just told you the book contains 65 pages of detailed equations and graphs. The entire methodology is very well explained.

Here's what you said previously:

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.

Did you change your mind? If so, then provide the equation. If not, then retract your claim that the entire methodology is well explained. Either way, if there's a lie here, it is you who said it.

What the hell are you talking about now? How is selling an engineering report unethical?

It is unethical to ask people to review something, but demand that they buy it in order to review it.

 

[Futilitist]

Did you change your mind? If so, then provide the equation. If not, then retract your claim that the entire methodology is well explained. Either way, if there's a lie here, it is you who said it.

Oh, knock it off. You are so tiresome.

It is unethical to ask people to review something, but demand that they buy it in order to review it.

No one ever asked you to review it.

And there is always option number 2:

Just ask BW Hill your questions about the Etp model at:

http://peakoil.com/forums/the-etp-model-q-a-t70563-220.html

Hopefully that won't cause you any ethical concerns. So, problem solved. You're welcome.



---Futilitist

 

[billvon]

Oh, knock it off. You are so tiresome.

Actually backing up your doomsday claims is so tiresome, isn't it? If only people would blindly accept what you are saying, you'd be a lot happier.

 

[brucep]

Nope, just the one. The key one.

Welcome to science, Futilitist. Sorry it isn't for you, but that's how it works. If you make a claim/prediction, people are going to want to evaluate that claim/prediction by looking into the details of how it was arrived at.

Looking into it a little more as I did with my last post: you have claimed that you, yourself generated the graph you posted in the OP. So you should be able to explain exactly how you created it*. If this were me, I'd upload a spreadsheet showing exactly how it was calculated and plotted. But I'm intellectually honest. Like I said, science isn't for everyone. [shrug]

*Unless the website has a function for sharing data/graphs, in which case you might have just gotten the graph itself from Hill himself. In which case, your dishonesty is his, by proxy. But since you're the one in here claiming to have generated the graph, you own it.

My guess is this dumbass is Hill. Wouldn't be the first time I've witnessed that type intellectual dishonesty on the Internet.

Maybe. I have seen before people making fake fan sockpuppets to worship themselves, but ostensibly it looks like these guys just became buddies on a Peak Oil crackpot forum.

Peak oil crackpot forum. LOL.

 

[brucep]

Oh, knock it off. You are so tiresome.


No one ever asked you to review it.

And there is always option number 2:

Just ask BW Hill your questions about the Etp model at:

http://peakoil.com/forums/the-etp-model-q-a-t70563-220.html

Hopefully that won't cause you any ethical concerns. So, problem solved. You're welcome.



---Futilitist

Funny stuff. You linking this thread at the po forum so everybody there can see just how clueless your analysis is. If you have to send folks over there to get a technical answer associated with your claim to have confirmed the etp model ......
Pretty funny Futilist. Ha ha.

 

[Kondratieff]

Hello everyone again,

Futilitist, I would like you to explain how did you get this conclusion? You're forecasting possible future oil prices (in terms of probability), it would be interesting for the rest of us to know the procedure that you used to create this graph:

http://s1064.photobucket.com/user/F...ar Dragon Update 2 Small_zpsdr3slwdj.jpg.html

Unfortunately, I don't think we can expect too many massive price swings around the Max Affordability curve. The basic logic is that the Etp curve is a strange attractor and the Max Affordability curve is a strange repeller. As we get further from the original Etp curve, it tends to have less and less effect on the overall system, while the effect of the Max Affordability curve tends to increase as we approach it.

Best Regards,

 

[Dr_Toad]

Really? Really?

 

[Kondratieff]

Utter rubbish. The price of oil is related to its value to the economy. This has no necessary connection to the energy content required to extract it, any more than the value of a diamond is determined by the energy required to extract it.

Well, I certainly don't agree with your approach. The difference between Oil and diamonds, is that the first one is required to power (or to create work, in physics terminology) a large share of essential activities that form our economic system, whereas the second one lacks the ability to create work or power anything.

There are two players in this game.

The first player is the petroleum industry and everything that it involves (ships, water injections and the energy needed to inject the water, trucks, steel pipes, drilling rigs, etc)

The second player is the end consumer. Of course, at the end of the day, someone has to pay the massive investment of the first player. This someone is the end consumer.

If the first player is continuously requiring larger and larger amounts of capital (resources), it will, someday, hit a ceiling. Which one? I think the answer to this question is intuitive: The day when it takes more Energy (Petroleum) to build the infrastructure, extract oil and distribute it to the end consumer than the Energy that is recovered, the production will have to cease, as it wouldn't make any sense to continue with it. (It will turn into a liability - and currencies/"money" will reflect this reality).

Best Regards,

 

[Futilitist]

Hello again, Kondratieff.

Futilitist, I would like you to explain how did you get this conclusion? You're forecasting possible future oil prices (in terms of probability), it would be interesting for the rest of us to know the procedure that you used to create this graph:

I don't think I can explain my method very exactly on this. I have some hunches about the behavior of non-linear systems, specifically involving symmetries around a phase change, combined with some analysis of current supply and demand conditions, plus a healthy dose of common sense concerning where we might be in terms of the current multiphasic collapse that has already begun. Treat it as an educated WAG that seems to be coming true.

I am basically trying to out guess the Etp model. I think the Etp model is totally valid and gives a good basic view of the future price of oil. But it is a best case scenario. It assumes continuing total system efficiency, especially concerning the financial system. I just don't think the system will behave with the same efficiency on the way down that it did on the way up. That is because of positive feedbacks of collapse that are not accounted for in the model.

Unfortunately, I don't think we can expect too many massive price swings around the Max Affordability curve. The basic logic is that the Etp curve is a strange attractor and the Max Affordability curve is a strange repeller. As we get further from the original Etp curve, it tends to have less and less effect on the overall system, while the effect of the Max Affordability curve tends to increase as we approach it.

I still think my statement above is basically correct. We are unlikely to see the price of oil cross above the Max. affordability line. Although the oil price is currently showing a bit of volatility, once the world stock markets crash and oil drops along with them, the over-all system will display less and less price volatility over time.



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

Well, I certainly don't agree with your approach. The difference between Oil and diamonds, is that the first one is required to power (or to create work, in physics terminology) a large share of essential activities that form our economic system, whereas the second one lacks the ability to create work or power anything.

That isn't true. Energy powers machines, but money powers the economy. With oil, you can measure the input required to produce an output with either and the issue works similarly: you need an output greater than the input to make it worthwhile to mine a resource, whether oil or diamonds and whether you measure the input in dollars or joules....at least in the rough, simplistic analysis. But:

If the first player is continuously requiring larger and larger amounts of capital (resources), it will, someday, hit a ceiling. Which one? I think the answer to this question is intuitive: The day when it takes more Energy (Petroleum) to build the infrastructure, extract oil and distribute it to the end consumer than the Energy that is recovered, the production will have to cease, as it wouldn't make any sense to continue with it. (It will turn into a liability - and currencies/"money" will reflect this reality).

Kind of. One of the things the peak oilers forget is that there are different sources of energy and these different sources have different values (costs). Electricity or natural gas can be substituted for oil in many cases, but in others - such as airplanes - oil is superior due to its portability. So even after the EROEI goes below 1, it will still be used to power airplanes, taking energy in from other sources to do it.

Beyond that, oil is also an industrial chemical, used to create products like plastics. For that purpose, its value is not at all tied to its energy content and only somewhat tied to the energy required to extract it. Not unlike diamonds.

 

[Futilitist]

Well, I certainly don't agree with your approach. The difference between Oil and diamonds, is that the first one is required to power (or to create work, in physics terminology) a large share of essential activities that form our economic system, whereas the second one lacks the ability to create work or power anything.

There are two players in this game.

The first player is the petroleum industry and everything that it involves (ships, water injections and the energy needed to inject the water, trucks, steel pipes, drilling rigs, etc)

The second player is the end consumer. Of course, at the end of the day, someone has to pay the massive investment of the first player. This someone is the end consumer.

If the first player is continuously requiring larger and larger amounts of capital (resources), it will, someday, hit a ceiling. Which one? I think the answer to this question is intuitive: The day when it takes more Energy (Petroleum) to build the infrastructure, extract oil and distribute it to the end consumer than the Energy that is recovered, the production will have to cease, as it wouldn't make any sense to continue with it. (It will turn into a liability - and currencies/"money" will reflect this reality).

Kondratieff is completely correct. Of course.

This is one of the basic physics concepts that no one here will agree to. This concept should be a matter of common sense. It is not reasonable to argue against it. Period.

That is why Russ Watters and his crew have to use so many deceptive tricks. They don't have a leg to stand on.



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

I don't think I can explain my method very exactly on this. I have some hunches about the behavior of non-linear systems, specifically involving symmetries around a phase change, combined with some analysis of current supply and demand conditions, plus a healthy dose of common sense concerning where we might be in terms of the current multiphasic collapse that has already begun. Treat it as an educated WAG that seems to be coming true.

I am basically trying to out guess the Etp model.

So, for those playing at home, he doesn't have an analytical method, just guesses and handwaving based on his chosen religious belief. And even for the "ETP Model", since the method wasn't provided, he's having to guess! And this is what he calls "Empirically confirmed"!

 

[Futilitist]

See what I mean folks? Russ Watters just plays distracting, meaningless rhetorical games.

He is not really interested in the truth. He never admits to being wrong about anything.

He is just pushing an anti peak oil agenda (for his corporate paymasters?).

Kind of. One of the things the peak oilers forget is that there are different sources of energy and these different sources have different values (costs). Electricity or natural gas can be substituted for oil in many cases, but in others - such as airplanes - oil is superior due to its portability. So even after the EROEI goes below 1, it will still be used to power airplanes, taking energy in from other sources to do it.

By the time the EROEI of oil goes below 1:1, we will have lost 38% of our total energy and about 90% of our transportation fuel. The Etp model forecasts that this will happen by 2021. So, are you seriously suggesting that alternatives could possibly ramp up that much that fast?

Please explain how, or admit that you are wrong (or perhaps lying?).


---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

By the time the EROEI of oil goes below 1:1, we will have lost 38% of our total energy and about 90% of our transportation fuel. The Etp model forecasts that this will happen by 2021. So, you are seriously suggesting that alternatives could possibly ramp up that much that fast?

Did you forget you were ignoring me?

More than two and a half years ago, you posed the same question. If you'd been right then, most of us would be dead by now. Since then, the volume of our recoverable reserves has only increased, pushing the end of the oil age further away and softening the decline -- even by your own projections, the apocalypse gets more and more boring. So yeah, I'm quite confident the alternatives are ramping up fast enough.

Please explain how.

The ways we already are: Increasing efficiency. Substituting natural gas, solar and wind for oil. Later, nuclear power. We have decades before things really get difficult, so I see no issue of real significance standing in the way.

 

[Futilitist]

More than two and a half years ago, you posed the same question. If you'd been right then, most of us would be dead by now. Since then, the volume of our recoverable reserves has only increased, pushing the end of the oil age further away and softening the decline...

The volume of (theoretically) recoverable reserves grew when the oil price was high. Tar sands and fracking were added to production. Then the price collapsed and all that new production is now not profitable to produce, along with the increased volume of (theoretically) recoverable reserves. If the oil price does not recover soon, all of the gains you talk about will never materialize.

The ways we already are: Increasing efficiency. Substituting natural gas, solar and wind for oil. Later, nuclear power. We have decades before things really get difficult, so I see no issue of real significance standing in the way.

Increasing efficiency does not produced energy. All of the substitutes for oil you mention cost money and the economy is already starting to fail.

Saying we have decades left is begging the question. The Etp model is currently performing perfectly. The model forecasts that we don't have the luxury of decades to replace oil.

If the EROEI of oil falls to 1:1 by 2021, as the Etp model forecasts, are you still suggesting that increasing efficiency and substitutions will make up the gap?

Will you at least admit that, if the Etp model is valid, we are pretty screwed?


---Futilitist

 

[Daecon]

Futilitist, what end result do you hope to ultimately achieve?

Suppose everyone accepts your graph and accepts what you say it means - what do you want to happen next?

 

[Futilitist]

Futilitist, what end result do you hope to ultimately achieve?

Suppose everyone accepts your graph and accepts what you say it means - what do you want to happen next?

I don't really expect people to embrace the idea of social collapse and die-off (and it wouldn't do any good, anyway). Instead, human nature being what it is, I expect to see increasingly desperate denial. And that is just what I find here.

I accept that there isn't any solution to our dilemma. The only possible outcome is collapse.



---Futilitist

 

[Daecon]

And what happens when society doesn't collapse in accordance with your predictions?

 

[Futilitist]

And what happens when society doesn't collapse in accordance with your predictions?

If it doesn't happen, I will be very happy.

What happens when society does collapse despite your fondest hopes?



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

The volume of (theoretically) recoverable reserves grew when the oil price was high. Tar sands and fracking were added to production.

Yes - the high price, combined with the technology making fracking work, for relatively cheap prices.

Then the price collapsed and all that new production is now not profitable to produce, along with the increased volume of (theoretically) recoverable reserves. If the oil price does not recover soon, all of the gains you talk about will never materialize.

If the supply doesn't keep up with the demand, the price will have to rise (unless further advances in technology make it cheaper to extract). That's basic economics. The oil is still there - it's not going anywhere unless we pump it out of the ground. What is different between now and 10 years ago is that now it is possible to recover that oil at reasonable prices.

And what's different between now and a year ago is that Saudi Arabia is declining to keep the price artificially high. As long as they choose to do that, oil prices will stay low and it will be plentiful. After that, it will go up a little and fracking will expand. Either way, the oil is there and will be recovered.

Increasing efficiency does not produced energy.

Increasing efficiency is in many ways better than producing energy. It's like money in the bank. What it does for the oil situation, though, is stretch the reserves and reduce the slope of the eventual decline.

All of the substitutes for oil you mention cost money...

Yes...

...and the economy is already starting to fail.

No, not even in the slightest. A minor stock market correction, like the dozens before it, is not a failing economy. You've also been looking at little bits of negative or not positive enough news as the start of the "collapse" for 2.5 years -- you've been wrong every time and you are wrong now. After this dissipates, you'll disappear for a few months, only to return when the next little bump in the road happens, because this one, this time, really, really, believe me, is the one. You'll be wrong then too.

After enough repetitions of this pattern, we will eventually get to the next recession (there's always a next recession). Finally!, you'll be able to see real, actual negative news and an actually decreasing economy. For a few months, you'll have something real to hang your hat on.

...But then the economy will recover from that one too (and you'll claim it is only temporary).

This pattern will continue for as long as you have the stomach for being so badly wrong all the time.

Saying we have decades left is begging the question. The Etp model is currently performing perfectly. The model forecasts that we don't have the luxury of decades to replace oil.

Says you, who by your own admission is only guessing about how the ETP model works.

If the EROEI of oil falls to 1:1 by 2021, as the Etp model forecasts...

It won't. It can't. There's way too much oil available, at a way better EROEI than that.

Will you at least admit that, if the Etp model is valid, we are pretty screwed?

Certainly. Also, if an asteroid the size of Texas hits us and Bruce Willis isn't available to go after it, we're screwed too. Neither is very likely though, there isn't much point in such things unless you are planning to make a fictional movie about it.