That's not what he asked. He asked what you hope to achieve. I'm curious about this as well. If we all change our minds and agree with you, what will you do next (after you finish gloating)?
The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed
- Thread starter Futilitist
- Start date
- Status
The high price is the important factor. The reserves that are being fracked now were discovered decades ago. Hydro fracking has improved lately, but it is still too expensive. Fracking for tight oil did not become wide spread until the oil price was over 100 dollars a barrel. Now that oil prices are under 50 dollars a barrel, tight oil can no longer be produced at a profit. So bringing up the technology improvements is just another rhetorical trick.
If the economy is too weak to support an oil price increase, we will not have an oil price increase. That is also basic economics.
That is correct, Russ. Very good.
To pump that oil out of the ground requires energy. And a functioning economy.
The Etp model explains why oil can no longer produce enough GDP/barrel to support an economy in which consumers can pay the full cost of oil production.
What do you mean by reasonable prices? It is not possible to produce tight oil at a profit with the current oil price. That is a big problem. In order for the price to rise, much of that tight oil production will have to stop. Catch-22.
Red herring. This is wrong on so many levels. The Saudis did not cause the oil price to drop. They can't make the price go back up. You are just repeating a stupid, unsupportable piece of right wing propaganda from the Wall Street Journal. Not very scientific.
The oil may be recovered, but everyone is about to be too poor to afford to buy much of it, no matter what the price.
You sound like you are arguing with me circa 2006! That was barely an okay argument even back then. But now we have a thermodynamic model (the Etp model) which accurately explains the latest oil price plunge. So, highly dated arguments, like yours above, are simply not relevant anymore. The Etp model proves that we no longer have enough time for increasing efficiency to do what you claim it will.
I was not wrong every time. I have been looking at bits of negative news and treating them as cumulative damage leading toward an inevitable collapse, since collapse is inevitable (see the David Price paper from the "Apocalypse Soon?" thread). Timing that collapse with perfect accuracy is impossible. But as we know more, we can make better and better forecasts.
You refuse to believe that collapse is even possible, let alone inevitable. You disregard all negative news, and put a positive spin on everything. With your eyes wired shut, you will never see anything.
I have never admitted to such a thing. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I understand how the Etp model works. You clearly don't.
And the Etp model is still accurately forecasting the price of oil.
No. You are wrong. The Etp model shows why.
At least you admit that if the Etp model is valid we are screwed.
Now you just have to prove that the etp model is invalid. Do you have any such proof?
---Futilitist
Last edited:
I don't know. I think I would be in such a state of shock that I would forget to gloat!
So [bracing myself for a possible shock], are you now agreeing with me?
---Futilitist
Last edited:
how was this massively important ffucking line plotted to begin with ?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
this little important question is a " deceptive trick " ?
Are you on drugs?I don't know. I think I would be in such a state of shock that I would forget to gloat!
So [bracing myself for a possible shock], are you now agreeing with me?
---Futilitist
Costs for 1 BOE (barrel of oil equivalent) from a few different company's shale oil operations:
Antero $22.56
Cabot $21.48
EQT $20.35
Exco $29.13
Ultra $29.64
WPX $31.03
All prices include exploration, lifting costs and taxes.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/300...antero-cabot-eqt-exco-ultra-wpx-in-2014?ifp=0
Oil cost as of today - $45.22
(Quick quiz - how much will each of the above companies make by selling oil from those wells at today's prices?)
So far you have been.
So what? If tight oil production slows, the price will go back up - whether to $75 or $100 and production will ramp back up again. An equilibrium will be reached at some point. Indeed, indications are that due to Saudi Arabia's loss of power over oil prices we are likely to be entering an era of unprecedented oil price stability.
Your argument around this rests soley on a cart-before-the-horse prediction of a phantom economic collapse preceding any problems with oil production. It's the opposite of what you used to claim/predict and frankly is just plain stupid.
Of course: but that's a calamity without a cause; You're putting the cart before the horse. And you know this: I've asked you several times for significant evidence that we are in a collapse and you've declined to provide any. You're just repeating over and over again that little, ordinary negative news is somehow different this time. You need to do better than that.
I'd be delighted to hear how it explains that, by seeing the details of the model, which you still will not provide. In either case, since this thread is titled "...Empirically confirmed", you need to provide the empirical confirmation: some substantial evidence that the economy is collapsing. Because there are an awful lot of economists in the world who seem to be ignoring this "collapse" we are currently experiencing.
$75-$100 a barrel, vs much more than that a decade ago.
It's really not. It's just normal economics. You're looking at this as if it is a black-or-white issue, that at $50 a barrel, tight oil production must drop to zero. That's false, and you've already been shown the data many times that demonstrates that. And even if it were true, when the price goes back up again, production will ramp up again. There is no problem there, just normal economic business as usual.
Your own source removed the 1970s oil shocks from the data before analyzing it. Why do you think that is? You've steadfastly denied the impact of oil price manipulation throughout this, but no one on the planet who understands the slightest bit of economics or history should fail to recognize that it is a reality.
That said, since you are suggesting an alternat explanation from what everyone else is saying, explain it. What, specifically, happened that month that triggered the fall? And don't say crossing a line on the graph because if oil traders didn't know about your graph they wouldn't have reacted to it. Something they saw would have had to convince them oil now had less value.
Based on the phantom collapse. Right.
Back in 2006, the Peak Oil argument was better than it is today because fracking wasn't widely used. So delaying the downslide was an important thing. Today it is less important, but still works. And, indeed, changing usage patterns over the last 10 years have had a significant impact on the longevity.
Increasing efficiency is just one aspect of a mutli-faceted issue. Regardless, since you're just guessing about how the ETP Model works, yours is a pretty baseless claim. It's an attempt to re-package a big prediction failure and turn it into a success, but with worse logic than the first time.
Yes, you were wrong: Since collapses are sudden and spectacular, the timelines on your predictions were short. These little bits of negative news were always pointing at a collapse starting now and it never did. This schtick you are trying to sell of years-worth of little negative news accumulating into a sudden collapse is a silly self-contradiction that you are trying to use to weasel out of your repeated failures.
That is not true. I've been very clear that I believe that we will eventually run out of cheap oil and that it will be a problem. The word "collapse" is loaded and subject to interpretation, so I won't use it, but could it cause a substantial recession, perhaps even a depression and decades of economic hardship.
You cannot expect people to share your religion just because you have faith in it. This is a science forum and a scientific issue: you must prove your claims.
The stock market was on its fourth longest winning streak in history and there have been dozens of corrections like the one we just had or worse (a 10% drop is how a "correction" is defined, so every winning streak ends in one). You'd need a really good reason to convince anyone who doesn't pre-accept your religion that this one was somehow portending an apocalypse.
A few hours earlier, you said: "I have some hunches about the behavior...I am basically trying to out guess the ETP Model."
Let's not split hairs here: at this point, you own all of it since you are the one in here defending it and have been sanctioned by the creator. You're guessing and faithing all of this.
The price of oil has been fairly stable for months. Your sketch doesn't show that. It's not behaving anything like the prediction, and you've already shown you are quite happy to say that anything (up, down, stable) matches. You follow no criteria for success/failure.
How? Don't just point to a graph with no equation. Either provide the equation or explain the exact mechanism that the EROEI of a barrel of oil sitting in the ground can drop. The reality is the opposite: the EROEI of a barrel of oil sitting in the ground, waiting for extraction, can only go up. It can't go down.
Of course. It's not much of a thing to admit. If a comet the size of Texas crashes into us, we're screwed too. And don't get me started on that Silver Surfer guy. So what? Fiction is fiction.
No, I don't have proof (I can't very well difinitively prove or disprove something that is being witheld from me!) and no, I don't have to prove it is invalid. Welcom to science. I realize you don't like science, but you aren't entitled to change the rules: the burden of proof remains, always, on you.
What has been eluded to here and for Futilitist's edification, as long as revenue exceeds marginal cost, oil well operators will continue to produce. The big costs in oil production are up front when the wells and infrastructure are constructed.
Hey Everyone.
I am going to be offline for a couple of days.
Hey Russ.
I will reply to your post when I get back.
---Futilitist
I am going to be offline for a couple of days.
Hey Russ.
I will reply to your post when I get back.
---Futilitist
Like Russ said this is supposed to be a science forum. You can't describe why you think your analysis confirms this model so you should put a cork in it until you can. I'll just state it in a way you might understand. The etp is phantasmagorical bullshit that has no correlation with reality.Hello again, Kondratieff.
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.
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
Can this Futilist read palms also?
Or does he limit himself to crystal balls?Or perhaps it's in the stars?
The first problem for the nonsense Futilist is touting is a set of postulates that nobody will agree are derived from experience. IE they're not self evident. They're bullshit. Or maybe he'll find a way to show they're not bullshit, just unrealized, with some confirmation associated with empirical evidence. Kinda like Russ suggested.
Last edited:
Hey Russ,
Since you wanted some more details, here is a basic summary of the nested control volumes and the derivation of the $$E_{TP}$$ equation:
"Crude oil is used primarily as an energy source; its other uses have only minor commercial value. To be an energy source it must therefore be capable of delivering sufficient energy to support its own production process (extraction, processing and distribution); otherwise it would become an energy sink, as opposed to a source. The Total Production Energy ($$E_{TP}$$) must therefore be equal to, or less than EG, its specific exergy. To determine values for $$E_{TP}$$ the total crude oil production system is analyzed by defining it as three nested Control Volumes within the environment. The three Control Volumes (where a control volume differs from a closed system because it allows energy and mass to pass through it's boundaries) are the reservoir, the well head, and the Petroleum Production System (PPS). The PPS is where the energy that comes from the well head is converted into the work required to extract the oil. The PPS is an area which is distributed within, and throughout the environment. It is where the goods and services needed for the production process originate. This boundary make-up allows other energy, and mass transfers to be considered as exchanges, such as natural gas used in refining, electricity used in well pumping, or water used for reservoir injection."
~BW Hill
Values for $$E_{TP}$$ are derived from the solution of the Second Law statement, the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes:
$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}
=\sum_j\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}
+\sum_i\dot{m}_{i}s_{i}
-\sum_e\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}
+\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$
"Where $$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}$$ represents the time rate of change of entropy within the control volume. The terms $$\dot{m}_{i}s_{i}$$ and $$\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}$$ account, respectively, for rates of entropy transfer into and out of the control volume accompanying mass flow. The term $$\dot{Q}_{j}$$ represents the time rate of heat transfer at the location on the boundary where the instantaneous temperature is $$T_{j}$$. The ratio $$\frac{\dot{Q}_j}{T_j}$$ accounts for the accompanying rate of entropy transfer. The term $$\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$ denotes the time rate of entropy production due to irreversibilities within the control volume."
~(Taken from Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics by Moran and Shapiro)
Because there is only one temperature boundary (at the exit point of the reservoir) and no crude oil enters the reservoir from the environment, the equation reduces to:
$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}=\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}-\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}+\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$
giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$
For this application, crude oil and water can be treated as incompressible substances. Their specific entropies are only affected by a temperature change.
For specific heats: $$c_{v}=c_{p}=c$$, and $$s_{2}-s_{1}=c*\ln{\frac{T_{2}}{T_{1}}}$$ The reservoir temperature is constant, therefore the entropy of the reservoir must decrease at the same rate that the entropy is transferred from the reservoir by mass flow. Thus, the heat leaving the reservoir is negative in sign and the equation becomes:
$$\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}=\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$
giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$
The rate of entropy production in the petroleum production system is equal to the rate of heat extracted from the reservoir divided by the reservoir temperature.
The rate of irreversibility production in the petroleum production system therefore becomes:
$$\dot{I_{cv}}=T_{O}*\dot\sigma_{cv}$$
giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec}$$
Where $$T_{O}$$ equals the standard reference temperature of the environment, 537 °R (77° F).
Therefore:
$$E_{TP}=\int_{t1}^{t2}\dot{I_{cv}}dt$$
giving: $$BTU$$
Because the mass removed from the reservoir is limited to crude oil and water, the increase in $$E_{TP}$$ per billion barrels (Gb) of crude extracted as $$ds=c\frac{dT}{T}$$ is:
(Equation#7)
$$\frac{E_{TP/lb}}{Gb}
=\begin{bmatrix}\frac{(m_{c}*c_{c}
+m_{w}*c_{w})(T_{R}-T_{O})}{m_{c}} \end{bmatrix}/Gb$$
giving: BTU/lb/Gb
$$m_{c}$$ = mass of crude, lbs.
$$c_{c}$$ = specific heat of crude, BTU/lb °R
$$m_{w}$$ = mass of water, lbs.
$$c_{w}$$ = specific heat of water, BTU/lb °R
$$T_{R}$$ = reserve temperature, °R
$$T_{O}$$ = standard reference temperature of the environment, 537 °R
$$s_{i}$$ = specific entropy into the control volume
$$s_{e}$$ = specific entropy exiting the control volume
BTU/gal/Gb for 35.7° API crude = BTU/lb/Gb * 7.0479 lb/gal
Evaluation of $$E_{TP}$$ from Equation# 7 requires the determination of three variables: mass of the crude ($$m_{c}$$) mass of the water ($$m_{w}$$), and the temperature of the reservoir ($$T_{R}$$). These must be determined at time (t).
1) The mass of crude at time (t) is derived from the cumulative production function,
2) the mass of water is derived from the average % surface water cut (fw) of the reservoir,
3) temperature of the reserve is derived from the well depth. This assumes an earth temperature gradient of 1°F increase per 70 feet of depth.
---Futilitist
Since you wanted some more details, here is a basic summary of the nested control volumes and the derivation of the $$E_{TP}$$ equation:
"Crude oil is used primarily as an energy source; its other uses have only minor commercial value. To be an energy source it must therefore be capable of delivering sufficient energy to support its own production process (extraction, processing and distribution); otherwise it would become an energy sink, as opposed to a source. The Total Production Energy ($$E_{TP}$$) must therefore be equal to, or less than EG, its specific exergy. To determine values for $$E_{TP}$$ the total crude oil production system is analyzed by defining it as three nested Control Volumes within the environment. The three Control Volumes (where a control volume differs from a closed system because it allows energy and mass to pass through it's boundaries) are the reservoir, the well head, and the Petroleum Production System (PPS). The PPS is where the energy that comes from the well head is converted into the work required to extract the oil. The PPS is an area which is distributed within, and throughout the environment. It is where the goods and services needed for the production process originate. This boundary make-up allows other energy, and mass transfers to be considered as exchanges, such as natural gas used in refining, electricity used in well pumping, or water used for reservoir injection."
~BW Hill
Values for $$E_{TP}$$ are derived from the solution of the Second Law statement, the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes:
$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}
=\sum_j\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}
+\sum_i\dot{m}_{i}s_{i}
-\sum_e\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}
+\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$
"Where $$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}$$ represents the time rate of change of entropy within the control volume. The terms $$\dot{m}_{i}s_{i}$$ and $$\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}$$ account, respectively, for rates of entropy transfer into and out of the control volume accompanying mass flow. The term $$\dot{Q}_{j}$$ represents the time rate of heat transfer at the location on the boundary where the instantaneous temperature is $$T_{j}$$. The ratio $$\frac{\dot{Q}_j}{T_j}$$ accounts for the accompanying rate of entropy transfer. The term $$\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$ denotes the time rate of entropy production due to irreversibilities within the control volume."
~(Taken from Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics by Moran and Shapiro)
Because there is only one temperature boundary (at the exit point of the reservoir) and no crude oil enters the reservoir from the environment, the equation reduces to:
$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}=\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}-\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}+\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$
giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$
For this application, crude oil and water can be treated as incompressible substances. Their specific entropies are only affected by a temperature change.
For specific heats: $$c_{v}=c_{p}=c$$, and $$s_{2}-s_{1}=c*\ln{\frac{T_{2}}{T_{1}}}$$ The reservoir temperature is constant, therefore the entropy of the reservoir must decrease at the same rate that the entropy is transferred from the reservoir by mass flow. Thus, the heat leaving the reservoir is negative in sign and the equation becomes:
$$\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}=\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$
giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$
The rate of entropy production in the petroleum production system is equal to the rate of heat extracted from the reservoir divided by the reservoir temperature.
The rate of irreversibility production in the petroleum production system therefore becomes:
$$\dot{I_{cv}}=T_{O}*\dot\sigma_{cv}$$
giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec}$$
Where $$T_{O}$$ equals the standard reference temperature of the environment, 537 °R (77° F).
Therefore:
$$E_{TP}=\int_{t1}^{t2}\dot{I_{cv}}dt$$
giving: $$BTU$$
Because the mass removed from the reservoir is limited to crude oil and water, the increase in $$E_{TP}$$ per billion barrels (Gb) of crude extracted as $$ds=c\frac{dT}{T}$$ is:
(Equation#7)
$$\frac{E_{TP/lb}}{Gb}
=\begin{bmatrix}\frac{(m_{c}*c_{c}
+m_{w}*c_{w})(T_{R}-T_{O})}{m_{c}} \end{bmatrix}/Gb$$
giving: BTU/lb/Gb
$$m_{c}$$ = mass of crude, lbs.
$$c_{c}$$ = specific heat of crude, BTU/lb °R
$$m_{w}$$ = mass of water, lbs.
$$c_{w}$$ = specific heat of water, BTU/lb °R
$$T_{R}$$ = reserve temperature, °R
$$T_{O}$$ = standard reference temperature of the environment, 537 °R
$$s_{i}$$ = specific entropy into the control volume
$$s_{e}$$ = specific entropy exiting the control volume
BTU/gal/Gb for 35.7° API crude = BTU/lb/Gb * 7.0479 lb/gal
Evaluation of $$E_{TP}$$ from Equation# 7 requires the determination of three variables: mass of the crude ($$m_{c}$$) mass of the water ($$m_{w}$$), and the temperature of the reservoir ($$T_{R}$$). These must be determined at time (t).
1) The mass of crude at time (t) is derived from the cumulative production function,
2) the mass of water is derived from the average % surface water cut (fw) of the reservoir,
3) temperature of the reserve is derived from the well depth. This assumes an earth temperature gradient of 1°F increase per 70 feet of depth.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You guys are so boring.
Hey Russ,
You disingenuously complain about not being able to see all the formulas and charts and graphs contained in a 65 page engineering report. You know there is no way for me to show all that to you. And it isn't even necessary, since the minute details are not at issue if you cannot agree to the most basic physics assumptions upon which the Etp model is based! You are a fraud and a professional liar, Russ. If you are so smart and successful and all, why not just buy a fucking copy of the Etp model yourself! I think it costs, like, 30 dollars! You should be able to afford that, what, with all your fabulous stock market gains lately. That way you could see the complete, detailed explanation, which I am now certain you could never understand!
I gave BW Hill a link to this conversation. This is what he had to say:
Re: The Etp Model, Q & A
by shortonoil » Fri 28 Aug 2015, 20:25:22
Whatever said:
"We'll just have to wait and see how it all that shakes out, but in the meantime, I created a thread on sciforums.com announcing my empirical confirmation of the Etp model.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-et ... ed.152487/
It's good for a few laughs, at least. Enjoy."
That link exhibits the most pathetic excuse for intelligence since the burning of the Library of Alexandra. You would have better luck explaining Quantum Mechanics to a fruit fly! If that is where the Internet is headed -- someone pull the switch!
~B.W. Hill,
B.S. ME, M.S., M.S. PM,
Director: The Hill's Group™
I answered back:
Unfortunately, like a brain dead patient on life support, we have to wait for the plug to fall out of the wall!
So anyway, Russ, buy the model, or at least ask your best questions directly to BW Hill at peakoil.com (I would pay money to see that!) Put up, or shut up. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.
---Futilitist
---------------------------------------------------
And execonomist, I mean exchemist,
You are not an artful dodger.
Here is the original question I put to you so long ago:
exchemist said:
The notion that there is a looming catastrophe, due to thermodynamics, which has somehow been missed by everyone in both government planning and in the relevant industries, is stark staring mad.
Futilitist said:
It is quite apparent from your reaction, and the general reactions from almost everyone on this forum, that people aren't necessarily very open to hearing about this looming catastrophe. People don't like bad news. And this is really, really bad news. Hell, it's pretty much the worst news ever.
If you were the President of the United States or the CEO of a major corporation, how would you break the news of the upcoming apocalypse to the world?
So answer the fucking question please. Thank you.
---Futilitist
I replied as follows in post no. 218:-
"I did reply to your similar question about a newspaper headline, as follows: "As for the newspaper headline, how about, "The End of the World is Nigh!"?
And so I suppose in the case of POTUS it might go:" Mah fellow Amrrrcans, the end is nigh."
You, meanwhile, have yet to explain why you think this is relevant to the discussion. It suggests that you either think there is a conspiracy, among those who know the hideous truth, to keep us all in ignorance of impending thermodynamic collapse, or that only you and BW Hill have worked it out. I would still like to know which of those two you think it is.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The POTUS is from Hawaii, not Texas. That's not how he speaks.
No, because it isn't really relevant anymore. That was a long time ago and I explained why it was relevant at the time. Multiple times, actually. While you dodged and weaved and refused to answer. Then you went away for quite a while. And now you are back to bring this irrelevant shit up again. Just when the thread was getting serious. Hmm...
Interesting.
In any case, you picked a great time to come back, since Russ_Watters apparently ran away because he obviously can't even understand the math he repeatedly demanded to see! Oops.
Your transparent, obvious purpose in coming back to this thread is simply to distract from Russ's epic fail. That is pretty useless, and really just amounts to trolling.
But, since you are here anyway, perhaps you posses the mathematical aptitude and physics knowledge that Russ_Watters so clearly lacks. If so, what do you think of the boundary conditions and mathematical derivation of the Etp function from the second law of thermodynamics that I just outlined in my previous post?
So, a staff member now decides it is vitally important to correct exchemist's distracting (trolling?) post because it contains a bad stereotype that all American Presidents have Texan accents.
Interesting.
As a staff member, you would naturally want to foster serious scientific discussion on this forum. So, as long as you dropped by, what do you think of the boundary conditions and mathematical derivation of the Etp function from the second law of thermodynamics that I just outlined in my previous post?
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Here are some statistics about current consumption of natural resources.
http://www.worldometers.info/
currently a 1% steady growth rate. All that is necessary is to apply the exponential function to this growth rate and you can predict the end of a finite resource.
Attachments
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Except that, as with some other predictions that rely on extrapolating a +ve exponential (e.g. population growth), future consumption of oil - which is what this thread is supposed to be about - will not follow a +ve exponential pattern.
It will flatten and eventually level off and then decline, driven by supply/demand relationships and their effect on price, as other energy sources progressively displace it, for the applications where oil has no special added value. In fact, what seems most likely is that oil will in due course ( say a couple of centuries from now) find its use approximating a negative exponential of some kind, tending towards but never quite approaching zero, as it is displaced out of more and more of its higher value applications. Most of these will not be energy applications at all, I suspect.
- Status