The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed
- Thread starter Futilitist
- Start date
- Status
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
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
yes and idiotic.
where's the track record ? i hope it's not that fictitious chart, correct ?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
You can't even use the theory to make a scientific prediction. That makes you an illiterate with respect to all the claims you've been making. What you say is irrelevant. You should consider learning how to do a scientific analysis. Or just find another subject.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
You're the one who can't answer any questions. Mine is 'can you derive a prediction associated with a future oil price at a specific future date?' All you're doing is making claims that everybody thinks are associated with bullshit rather than the price of oil.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
Then why don't you take it?Good advice.
---Futilitist
You can't take a random selection of numbers, say for example, the prices of oil - match it to some graph of the 2nd law of thermodynamics - and then say one causes the other.
[Moderator note: The word "can't" here was originally "can" - a typo corrected at the request of Deacon.]
Last edited by a moderator:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
In what respect?
Bartlett? Wiki? The exponential function? Oil reserves are unlimited? Population growth is not happening? There is no growth of any kind anywhere?
Give me a clue and I shall dilligently research it, I promise.
If you have nothing to add, I would suggest that you are the one looking in the mirror, while uttering those meaningless words.
p.s. "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is the inability to understand the Exponential Function".
Albert Bartlett, Professor Emeritus (physics).
Last edited:
But this is so much fun! You can prove, for example, that expensive potato chips cause people to fall out of their wheelchairs.
And that's a much closer correlation than this Etp thing.
LOL.But this is so much fun! You can prove, for example, that expensive potato chips cause people to fall out of their wheelchairs.
And that's a much closer correlation than this Etp thing.
So, exchemist beat me to the punch, but I'm still going to give it the full treatment, because we get so little substance from futilitist that there isn't much else to analyze otherwise. So:
It's a bizarre misunderstanding of the relatively simple issue of what an oil well does.
Here's the thing, though: "ETP" is supposed to stand for "Total Production Energy", which is the total energy required to produce a unit of oil, as a ratio of the two (ie: a 1:1 ratio is an input equal to the output). One of the things I've found odd from the beginning is that there already is a similar unit, called EROEI (energy return on energy investmed). These values should be very closely related: EROEI = ETP-1. EROEI is returned energy over input, vs ETP's produced energy over input.
So why go through all this mental masturbation to re-produce (poorly) something that already exists and works fine?
Now, in searching for more clarifications, I stumbled upon this group of "commentaries", which aren't linked form the main "hillsgroup" page:
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_018.htm
Have a look at the fifth one.
A quick nugget before diving into the meat:
Anyway, he provies some additional calculations:
The assumption then that the fraction of the economy powered by that is equal to the fraction of our energy use fraction isn't bad. Dividing $635B/$5.67T = 0.11. Incidentally, that's the inverse of EROEI: 1/.11 = 9, which is close to what the actual EROEI of oil is. So that logic is actually pretty good except for the part where he divided by a bogus efficiency number.
Where, exactly did you get the content of that post? It looks like a mixture of direct quotes from the author and cut-pastes from a textbook, but the quoting style is inconsistent.
The equation derivation is the math escribing that. what he's doing here is essentially treating the reservoir as a literal "heat reservoir" and calculating the energy removed by removing the oil, with the oil being the working fluid at a given temperature and thermal capacity. This would only be relevant if the oil were being used, liquid, as a working fluid in a heat engine. It isn't. When you pump it out of the ground, if it gets above ground warmer than the surrounding air, that energy is dissipated to the air as it cools. This has nothing at all to do with the value of the chemical energy contained in the oil or in the energy required to pump the oil out of the ground (which, as billvon explained earlier, is an issue of gravity and pressure, not thermodynamic energy).
It's a bizarre misunderstanding of the relatively simple issue of what an oil well does.
Given the bizarreness of the previous work, it isn't obvious what mass of crude and water he's talking about: mass per gallon? Per barrel? Per year? Cumulative? So this still doesn't provide the means for calculating the ETP value.
Here's the thing, though: "ETP" is supposed to stand for "Total Production Energy", which is the total energy required to produce a unit of oil, as a ratio of the two (ie: a 1:1 ratio is an input equal to the output). One of the things I've found odd from the beginning is that there already is a similar unit, called EROEI (energy return on energy investmed). These values should be very closely related: EROEI = ETP-1. EROEI is returned energy over input, vs ETP's produced energy over input.
So why go through all this mental masturbation to re-produce (poorly) something that already exists and works fine?
Now, in searching for more clarifications, I stumbled upon this group of "commentaries", which aren't linked form the main "hillsgroup" page:
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_018.htm
Have a look at the fifth one.
A quick nugget before diving into the meat:
Uh, no and no. Car and truck engines average more like 30% efficient and their source temperature is something on the order of 1200F.
Anyway, he provies some additional calculations:
Read that first sentence under "Method 1" over and over until it sinks in. He's saying that while we paid $635B for the crude we bought, somehow it still cost os $3T? No, $635B is $635B. Period.
The assumption then that the fraction of the economy powered by that is equal to the fraction of our energy use fraction isn't bad. Dividing $635B/$5.67T = 0.11. Incidentally, that's the inverse of EROEI: 1/.11 = 9, which is close to what the actual EROEI of oil is. So that logic is actually pretty good except for the part where he divided by a bogus efficiency number.
Last edited:
So this is a math contest?Futilitist said:
Ok: no one who knows anything about thermodynamics would make such a stupid request and no one who knows anything about thermodynamics would try to apply that method of analysis here. It's clear that Hills and/or you just copied the section out of the book to look smart, without having the slightest clue how it relates to reality.
You said you don't want this to be a "say something smart" contest, then that's exaclty what you try to make it. Trouble is, you clearly don't know the slightest bit of the math because all you are doing is cutting-and-pasting it.
Copying and pasting something over and over again does not demonstrate that you have any understanding at all of what you are copying and pasting. Specifically, nowhere in that equation is the most important energy to consider with oil: the chemical energy it contains. The energy due to its temperature is completely irrelevant to anything.
No, it certainly did not. For one thing, you're referring to the wrong curve and for another, the curve you are referring to wasn't constructed/analyzed properly.
Last edited:
No, you were quite explicit that society would start breaking-down by the end of summer, 2013.
I don't want to waste my time answering a bunch of disingenuous bullshit. This is a serious topic. Do you guys have any serious comments?
---Futilitist
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Why do I bother? Why do you expect me to bother? You're just trolling, so why do you bother?
I asked if you guys had any serious comments. I did not ask you why you bothered. You just made that up. You have some sort of reading comprehension problem. I don't expect you to bother, Russ.
It is quite evident that I am serious about the topic I am presenting. You are the troll.
---Futilitist
No. Clearly, you wrote that as a way to dismiss my lengthy, serious, well-reasoned posts rather than try to respond to them. I spent a lot of time on those posts. Your dismissiveness is insulting. It's rude. It's trolling.
[edit] And, of course, like the rest of what you post, it is lazy and ignorant. But while most of the time I can work around that by doing the work to explain the stuff you just lazily copy and paste without understanding, total dismissivness is just shutting down. But hey: it's your thread, if you want it to end with you failing, that's fine with me.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
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
Now we get some untruths.
- Oil companies are not making a loss: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/b...illips-shell-q1-earnings-oil-prices.html?_r=0
- Plenty of oil production is economic down to well below $50/bbl. Look at the second chart in this link for example: http://uk.businessinsider.com/citi-breakeven-oil-production-prices-2014-11?r=US&IR=T
Readers can see from this that current projects break even at an oil price of anything from $20/bbl upwards.
Production costs have of course risen over the years because the easiest wells to drill have already been drilled. This has nothing to do with thermodynamics: it is merely the elementary economic principle of "low hanging fruit".
As for this "model", since (a) it has at least 2 fatal flaws (misapplication of entropy, neglect of added value), as I and others have pointed out, and (b) you demonstrably don't understand either maths or thermodynamics and are consequently unable to explain how it supposedly works, I am simply not prepared to waste my time trawling through it all for myself. It may or may not show good correlation with the past - I certainly do not take it on trust from you that it does. The model may be honest, or it may have been dishonestly fiddled to give a good past correlation. I do not know. The key thing about it, in my view, is that it predicts that as a valuable resource becomes more scarce, its price will do down. That is barking mad.
P.S. I commend Russ W for his painstaking approach to pointing out the defects in thinking and misapplications of science that you have displayed. I wish I had his patience.
Last edited:
go back and re-read everything on this topic of what i already typed.
it's that simple.
shrugs.ahh yes, yes.. more elementary minded comments.
shrugs.- Status