The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[brucep]

Yes, it's barking alright. You cannot apply an entropy calculation to a system that is not finite. And, so long as new wells, new sources of oil such as shale, and new non-oil sources of energy can be become available to the world at a rate that your model cannot predict, you have a non-finite system.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times (to no avail), oil has added value beyond that of its basic calorific value. So its price is not determined purely by its calorific value.

The whole idea is stupid. You appear to have been bamboozled by a load of impressive looking maths, but it's crap from start to finish.

Exactly.

 

[brucep]

So you'd prefer to go with the 2021 "end of oil" date? Or what that someone else as well?
Let's review your previous predictions:

"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."

"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+%)."

"There is no solution. Science will not save us. The laws of physics trump political will. Run for the hills."

"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)


Simple. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

Sure! That discussion can start by you acknowledging that your previous predictions were in error. Until you can exhibit that basic level of intellectual honesty, real discussion is impossible.

He must get off on bending over and kissing his ass goodbye,

 

[Write4U]

Well, actually I don't think the collapse of Wall St did much damage. A lot of countries had a recession for a while, but that is the nature of things anyway. It certainly did not remotely shake the foundations of civilisation, nor did it change most people's way of life significantly. As to the size of the changes required, I agree they are large, but many countries in Europe - which has had higher energy costs than N America for a long time - are making significant strides towards reducing dependence on oil. The cost of renewables has come down sharply and there is no reason to think any kind of limit has been reached. Nuclear remains underexploited, due to the luxury we have now of choosing to treat it as too dangerous, but that calculus could easily shift if we get sufficiently short of energy. An enormous amount can be done to improve energy efficiency as well.

I do not doubt that implementing the necessary changes will be a brake on economic growth in years to come, but I see no reason whatever to think that we face any sort of cliff edge effect. I think the market - and the politics - will continue to drive change progressively, just as it has already done to a significant extent in N. Europe.

IOW, we are behind, compared to those prudent N. Europeans. Are they alarmists or perhaps a little wiser?

 

[krash661]

Are you not overlooking the exponential function?

what does this even mean, elaborate

New finds will add perhaps a few years, but will be insignificant in the greater scope of our dependency on non-renewable natural resources.

according to whom? what if more than can be conceived was found ? then what ?

Even at 1% growth it would take only 70 years to consume more than all of the oil in previous history

no this is simply incorrect.

We know that is impossible, so we are definitely on the downslope of the curve and the end of oil will come during our children's lifetimes. As Bartlett said "it is 1 minute before twelve o'clock" (when we run out).

what does this even mean, according to whom ? elaborate.[/QUOTE]

 

[Write4U]

Your worries are *WAY* out of date. We are *WAY* further down the downslope of the curve than you think we are. The Etp model definitively shows that the end of oil will come during our lifetimes. In about 5 years. 2021. Not some far off future.

If you are really concerned about the future, you should read up on the Etp model. Then you could take the 'concerned about the future' position in these arguments armed with the best current evidence, instead of the same old stuff we have been hearing for the last 10 years (no offense to Al Bartlett). ---Futilitist

I am merely using a more conservative approach to illustrate the same problem. In principle I agree with your concerns.

 

[Futilitist]

Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times (to no avail), oil has added value beyond that of its basic calorific value. So its price is not determined purely by its calorific value.

You are just wrong, as I have pointed out several times to no avail.

$$\frac{E_{TP/lb}}{Gb} =\begin{bmatrix}\frac{(m_{c}*c_{c} +m_{w}*c_{w})(T_{R}-T_{O})}{m_{c}} \end{bmatrix}/Gb$$

in which:

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.

You keep claiming that there is no relation between thermodynamics and the price of oil. Yet, using only the thermodynamic equation above, the Etp model tracked the yearly average oil price from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%! That is pretty amazing. It can't be a coincidence. How do you explain this?



---Futilitist

 

[krash661]

There you have it. They were called idiots, until they were proven right, in spite of the "optimistic forecasts".

I see a similar pattern with oil, for exactly the same reasons. Questions like, "what if the alarmists are wrong", "we can find new oil", "reduction in oil consumption will happen", are all wishful thinking. The end of oil will come sooner than later on the human clock.
Even if (as Exchemist says) negative "growth" will happen, consumption and depletion will continue relentlessly, until we find an eco-friendly renewable replacement source.

no no.. you do not comprehend, what " optimistic forecasts ".. did you obviously not understand ?
i don't care what you see... it's as simple as your blind and only bandwagon spewing. also " negative growth " happens at least three times a year. none of you have even an inkling how any of the reality is when it comes to global econ, nor anything that pertains. just an abundance of ignoramuses spewing, nothing more.

 

[krash661]

Your worries are *WAY* out of date. We are *WAY* further down the downslope of the curve than you think we are. The Etp model definitively shows that the end of oil will come during our lifetimes. In about 5 years. 2021. Not some far off future.

If you are really concerned about the future, you should read up on the Etp model. Then you could take the 'concerned about the future' position in these arguments armed with the best current evidence, instead of the same old stuff we have been hearing for the last 10 years (no offense to Al Bartlett).



---Futilitist

shakes head, you're such a joke that contradicts itself.

 

[origin]

Yes, it's barking alright. You cannot apply an entropy calculation to a system that is not finite. And, so long as new wells, new sources of oil such as shale, and new non-oil sources of energy can be become available to the world at a rate that your model cannot predict, you have a non-finite system.

Not to mention the entropy change in the oil removed from the ground due to the temperature change is just noise and has almost nothing to do with the cost of the oil. The cost of the oil is straight forward, it is the mass of the oil divided by the cost of drilling the well, the cost of extraction of the oil and the cost of the exploration to find the oil. The entropy change of the oil is all but irrelevant.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U said: ↑
Are you not overlooking the exponential function?

what does this even mean, elaborate

Watch the Bartlett lecture linked earlier. He is the teacher of maths. Tell him he is wrong.

New finds will add perhaps a few years, but will be insignificant in the greater scope of our dependency on non-renewable natural resources.

according to whom? what if more than can be conceived was found ? then what ?

Even at 1% growth it would take only 70 years to consume more than all of the oil in previous history

no this is simply incorrect.

Learn the dynamics of the "exponential function".

We know that is impossible, so we are definitely on the downslope of the curve and the end of oil will come during our children's lifetimes. As Bartlett said "it is 1 minute before twelve o'clock" (when we run out).

what does this even mean, according to whom ? elaborate.

See the Bartlett lecture, then tell me he is wrong.

no no.. you do not comprehend, what " optimistic forecasts ".. did you obviously not understand ?

Are you suggesting that we saw this coming? It only cost us a quick trillion dollars to halt the slide into another Great Depression. And the overall costs of this "minor blip" in the nations economy may be incalculable.

i don't care what you see... it's as simple as your blind and only bandwagon spewing. also " negative growth " happens at least three times a year. none of you have even an inkling how any of the reality is when it comes to global econ, nor anything that pertains. just an abundance of ignoramuses spewing, nothing more.

I am not impressed by that ad hominem rant. It reveals discomfort.

p.s. Negative Growth does not add oil, it just adds a little more time to the end of oil.

 

[Futilitist]

Not to mention the entropy change in the oil removed from the ground due to the temperature change is just noise and has almost nothing to do with the cost of the oil. The cost of the oil is straight forward, it is the mass of the oil divided by the cost of drilling the well, the cost of extraction of the oil and the cost of the exploration to find the oil. The entropy change of the oil is all but irrelevant.

Then why can't the oil companies make a profit with oil under 50 dollars a barrel? Could it be that the cost of oil production just keeps rising? That is the direct result of increasing entropy in the oil production system.

And the Etp model tracked the price of oil from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%.

So, the model keeps working even if you keep claiming that it can't possibly work. Is it possible that you might be wrong?


---Futilitist

 

[origin]

Then why can't the oil companies make a profit with oil under 50 dollars a barrel? Could it be that the cost of oil production just keeps rising?

Sure that could be true.

That is a result of increasing entropy in the oil production system.

No.

And the Etp model tracked the price of oil from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%.

Boy there is a disconnect somewhere because every prediction you make based on the E. Coli graph is wrong. Weird, huh?

 

[Futilitist]

Boy there is a disconnect somewhere because every prediction you make based on the E. Coli graph is wrong. Weird, huh?

I guess you think that is funny. But your lame attempt at humor is really just dodging a very important question you cannot answer. You are being disingenuous.

The Etp model uses the second law of thermodynamics to forecast the price of oil. You say this cannot be done. And yet the model works with an accuracy of 96.5%! So, you are obviously wrong. You should just admit it.


---Futilitist

 

[brucep]

You are just wrong, as I have pointed out several times to no avail.

$$\frac{E_{TP/lb}}{Gb} =\begin{bmatrix}\frac{(m_{c}*c_{c} +m_{w}*c_{w})(T_{R}-T_{O})}{m_{c}} \end{bmatrix}/Gb$$

in which:

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.

You keep claiming that there is no relation between thermodynamics and the price of oil. Yet, using only the thermodynamic equation above, the Etp model tracked the yearly average oil price from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%! That is pretty amazing. It can't be a coincidence. How do you explain this?



---Futilitist

Then why can't the oil companies make a profit with oil under 50 dollars a barrel? Could it be that the cost of oil production just keeps rising? That is the direct result of increasing entropy in the oil production system.

And the Etp model tracked the price of oil from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%.

So, the model keeps working even if you keep claiming that it can't possibly work. Is it possible that you might be wrong?


---Futilitist

It's probably not a coincidence. You claim the model has predicted the price of oil for 53 years to .965 probability. So it should be easy for you to use the model to make a future prediction. Show us how it works. Derive a prediction from your equation. Right now I think your postulates are nonsensical bullshit. Your analysis for why the cost of production rises is juvenile nonsense. So the fate of the human race depends on the price of oil? LOL.

 

[krash661]

Watch the Bartlett lecture linked earlier. He is the teacher of maths. Tell him he is wrong.




Learn the dynamics of the "exponential function".


See the Bartlett lecture, then tell me he is wrong.

no, you tell me. what is your understanding.

Are you suggesting that we saw this coming?

OMFG, what an idiot you are. no i'm suggesting there's nothing coming.

It only cost us a quick trillion dollars to halt the slide into another Great Depression. And the overall costs of this "minor blip" in the nations economy may be incalculable.

more ramblings of shiit you have no clue of.
shrugs.

I am not impressed by that ad hominem rant. It reveals discomfort.

umm ok.. were you suppose too be?

p.s. Negative Growth does not add oil, it just adds a little more time to the end of oil.

you have no clue what you're talking to begin with.
shrugs.

 

[krash661]

Then why can't the oil companies make a profit with oil under 50 dollars a barrel?

because you're an ignoramus and believe such nonsense. if you actually understood global macro, you would understand why i'm saying such things too you. it's that simple.

And the Etp model tracked the price of oil from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%.

where's the track record ? i hope it's not that fictitious chart, correct ?

 

[Write4U]

no, you tell me. what is your understanding.

Well, if you refuse to learn the dynamics of the exponential function from a Professor Emeritus in Mathematics, I won't waste my time.
But I understood his lecture very clearly. I am sure, you would also, if you could overcome your resistance to mathematics.

I'll leave you with one clue. A 1% steady growth of anything results in a "doubling time" of 70 years. 2% growth produces a doubling time of 35 years. 7% growth results in a doubling time
every 10 years..
Just remember the number 70 and divide by the % of steady growth to give you a doubling time.

The doubling time is the period of time required for a quantity to double in size or value. It is applied to population growth, inflation, resource extraction, consumption of goods, compound interest, the volume of malignant tumours, and many other things that tend to grow over time. When the relative growth rate (not the absolute growth rate) is constant, the quantity undergoes exponential growth and has a constant doubling time or period, which can be calculated directly from the growth rate.
This time can be calculated by dividing the natural logarithm of 2 by the exponent of growth, or approximated by dividing 70 by the percentage growth rate (more roughly but roundly, dividing 72; see the rule of 72 for details and a derivation of this formula).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubling_time.

Still wrong??

 

[brucep]

Not to mention the entropy change in the oil removed from the ground due to the temperature change is just noise and has almost nothing to do with the cost of the oil. The cost of the oil is straight forward, it is the mass of the oil divided by the cost of drilling the well, the cost of extraction of the oil and the cost of the exploration to find the oil. The entropy change of the oil is all but irrelevant.

The entropy change. For the most part those fields are in thermal equilibrium. The entropy of the field is at maximum. It remain at near thermal equilibrium regardless whether they are producing or non producing.

 

[billvon]

And the Etp model tracked the price of oil from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%.

It is extremely easy to make such a model after you have the data set you are trying to fit. It is trivial for someone with even a basic mathematics background.

Is it possible that you might be wrong?

Better question. If, in five years, we are still using oil, will you be able to admit that you are wrong, as you have been with every other prediction you have made?[/QUOTE]

 

[Futilitist]

To All.

I said this to exchemist:

You are just wrong, as I have pointed out several times to no avail.

$$\frac{E_{TP/lb}}{Gb} =\begin{bmatrix}\frac{(m_{c}*c_{c} +m_{w}*c_{w})(T_{R}-T_{O})}{m_{c}} \end{bmatrix}/Gb$$

in which:

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.

You keep claiming that there is no relation between thermodynamics and the price of oil. Yet, using only the thermodynamic equation above, the Etp model tracked the yearly average oil price from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%! That is pretty amazing. It can't be a coincidence. How do you explain this?

Exchemist can't seem to answer the question. Neither could origin. Neither could brucep. Neither can Russ_Watters.

It is a pretty important question.

I have now shown mathematically that the Etp function is derived from the second law of thermodynamics. The Etp model tracks the yearly average price of oil from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%. If no one else can come up with a good alternate explanation to account all of this, I submit that I have proven that the Etp model must be valid.



---Futilitist