The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[origin]

Looking at the WTI price of crude, I see the excellent correlation of ETP to WTI if the price is not inflation adjusted and the points are cherry picked. What a piece of crap model. I think most of the correlation is simply due to inflation. Completely useless.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Looking at the WTI price of crude, I see the excellent correlation of ETP to WTI if the price is inflation adjusted and the points are cherry picked. What a piece of crap model. I think most of the correlation is simply due to inflation. Completely useless.

Typo: you mean NOT inflation adjusted.

 

[origin]

Typo: you mean NOT inflation adjusted.

Oops! Thanks for catching that, corrected.

 

[exchemist]

Looking at the WTI price of crude, I see the excellent correlation of ETP to WTI if the price is not inflation adjusted and the points are cherry picked. What a piece of crap model. I think most of the correlation is simply due to inflation. Completely useless.

How did it deal with the Yom Kippur War and the invasion of Kuwait, I wonder? Or the collapse in the oil price in 1986? Perhaps entropy ran backwards for a while at that point? Or perhaps civilisation collapsed, but we didn't notice?

 

[billvon]

Or perhaps civilisation collapsed, but we didn't notice?

Well, heck, according to him, 90% of us are already dead!

 

[krash661]

LIM..
i see dead people.

 

[Write4U]

krash,
I suggest you reread everything I posted.

You haven't posted anything pertaining to the Exponential function, because you refuse to learn this FUNDAMENTAL law of Mathematics.

The greatest shortcoming of the human race is the inability to understand the Exponential Function".
Albert Bartlett, Professor Emeritus (physics).

ahh yes, yes.. more elementary minded comments. shrugs.

Yes, shrugging is an expression of ignorance or disinterst. As you are replying to my post you cannot be disinterested. Thus in this case it is an expression of ignorance on the subject.

A shrug is a gesture that is performed by lifting both shoulders up, and is a representation of an individual either not knowing an answer to a question, or not caring about a result

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

Have you learned about the exponential function yet? If not, you cannot claim to be well informed and your derogatory comments (grunts) about my posts, and Bartlett's knowledge, and the accuracy of the wiki definition (and functionality), and denial of exhaustion of finite resources, and denial of population growth, are an expression of ignorance, which reminds me of this little anecdote.

Exponential stories
Rice on a chessboard
According to an old legend, vizier Sissa Ben Dahir presented an Indian King Sharim with a beautiful, hand-made chessboard. The king asked what he would like in return for his gift and the courtier surprised the king by asking for one grain of rice on the first square, two grains on the second, four grains on the third etc. The king readily agreed and asked for the rice to be brought. All went well at first, but the requirement for 2 n − 1 grains on the nth square demanded over a million grains on the 21st square, more than a million million (aka trillion) on the 41st and there simply was not enough rice in the whole world for the final squares. (From Swirski, 2006)

In this example, each square represented a doubling time.
And you say this is idiotic, just like that King did, before he learned the power of the Exponential function.

So we have quite a list of denials, without any coherent counter arguments. Now who is the idiot?
Give me another shrug and confirm my assessment of your intellectual abilities.

I hope you do at least understand that I am not supporting Futilist's proposition, because I admit that I have no deep understanding of what he is trying to prove. In his case, I can shrug, not from derision but from the the fact that I have not studied that subject and cannot comment intelligently on his proposition.

However, in context of oil depletion, I do know something about the exponential function and I also know that you are completely ignorant of the term as well as the defined mathematical function.
After all, you asked what that means and for me to explain it to you, to which I generously responded with ample and reliable information, which apparently you did not read or did not understand.

So, unless I get a lucid answer on any of my questions, I must assume that you are detemined to remain ignorant of the subject and just remain rude, a clear sign of discomfort.

 

[Futilitist]

I hope you do at least understand that I am not supporting Futilist's proposition, because I admit that I have no deep understanding of what he is trying to prove. In his case, I can shrug, not from derision but from the the fact that I have not studied that subject and cannot comment intelligently on his proposition.

It's Futilitist, not Futilist.

I hope you do at least understand that I am supporting your position concerning the exponential function.

But...

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your shrug would mean exactly the same thing to me as krash661's shrug. Neither one of you has studied the subject of this thread and so neither one of you can comment intelligently on my proposition.

This thread is about the Etp model. Your off topic argument with krash661 is just a distraction. It has about the same effect as the constant trolling of Russ_Watters or billvon or exchemist. It really seems a bit tone deaf on your part (or perhaps it is purposeful?). If you want to argue about the exponential function with krash661, you should start a separate thread about the topic. Thanks.



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

This thread is about the Etp model. Your off topic argument with krash is just a distraction. It has about the same effect as the constant trolling of Russ_Watters or billvon or exchemist. It really seems a bit tone deaf on your part (or perhaps it is purposeful?). If you want to argue about the exponential function with krash, you should start a separate thread about the topic. Thanks.

Your participation in this thread is no longer necessary, relevant or desired, since you've announced your decision to not support or discuss your thesis. So it's our thread now, to do with as we please.

 

[Futilitist]

Your participation in this thread is no longer necessary, relevant or desired, since you've announced your decision to not support or discuss your thesis. So it's our thread now, to do with as we please.

1) The above statement is your opinion only. It carries no weight here.
2) I have made no announcement of a decision not to support or discuss my thesis.
3) I am not obligated to respond to any of your ignorant, distracting, angry, vexatious posts.
4) Your participation is no longer necessary, relevant, or desired IMHO.
5) When you say "it's our thread now", who do you mean by "our", and do you guys always coordinate your actions?
6) When you say you will now do as you please, aren't you really admitting that you have been trolling all along?

I am perfectly willing to have a serious discussion about the Etp model.



---Futilitist

 

[billvon]

Your participation in this thread is no longer necessary, relevant or desired, since you've announced your decision to not support or discuss your thesis. So it's our thread now, to do with as we please.

Good point.

So to bring this into the serious realm - what do people here see as the future of oil over the next 10-20 years? I see a slow rise in price over the next 5 years or so associated with a slightly more rapid increase in demand. Unconventional sources (shale/tight oil) will increase rapidly while conventional sources slowly decline.

Eventually I think demand will catch up to development and prices will rise rapidly again, at which point demand will fall a bit due to economic forces and we'll see a new plateau at around $70/barrel (the price in 2015 dollars at which most tight oil is economically extractable.)

 

[Futilitist]

Hi billvon.

So to bring this into the serious realm...

Thanks for at least trying to be serious, for once.

But you are *WAY* incorrect, according to the Etp model. Over the next 5 years or so, the oil price will continue to drop. The oil industry and the general economy will shrink. By 2021, oil will no longer be an energy source for civilization.

Here is the how the Etp model is performing as far as forecasting the price of oil:

The price of oil remains below the Etp maximum oil price curve, as correctly forecast by the model. By around 2021, oil will reach the "zero state" as an energy source.

Our forecasts are radically different, billvon. We should know pretty soon who is right.



---Futilitist

 

[Write4U]

It's Futilitist, not Futilist.

I sincerely apologize for that oversight. It won't happen again.

I hope you do at least understand that I am supporting your position concerning the exponential function.

As I do support your fundamental assertion that oil depletion and its consequences or other correlations is inevitable and can be mathematically caculated.

But...
Please don't take this the wrong way, but your shrug would mean exactly the same thing to me as krash661's shrug. Neither one of you has studied the subject of this thread and so neither one of you can comment intelligently on my proposition.

I admit that I cannot intelligently comment on your proposition. And I did not shrug, but followed the debate with interest.
But if anyone asked me if your proposition was true or not, I might well shrug, not in disdain or disinterest, but from inability to make a comment on the subject of ETP.

This thread is about the Etp model. Your off topic argument with krash661 is just a distraction. It has about the same effect as the constant trolling of Russ_Watters or billvon or exchemist. It really seems a bit tone deaf on your part (or perhaps it is purposeful?).

I assure you, as layman, I have no agenda other than to try and contribute in a small way to serious discussions on serious matters. I was not trying to hijack the thread, just augment it.

If you want to argue about the exponential function with krash661, you should start a separate thread about the topic. Thanks. ---Futilitist

I agree and again apologize for invading your thread with an only tangently related subject. It was prompted by your use of the word "entropy".

en·tro·py, noun,

1. a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
2. lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder:
   "a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme"
   synonyms: deterioration · degeneration · crumbling · decline · degradation ·
   [more]
   decomposition · breaking down · collapse · disorder · chaos
3. (in information theory) a logarithmic measure of the rate of transfer of information in a particular message or language.

1. http://www.bing.com/search?q=entrop...=-1&sk=&cvid=EF46969A00684E21A7C974FA6C8F4699

I can only say that even your model would lend itself to the exponential function of "depletion" in some way, but you are right, this should be a subject of another thread.

As to my debate with Krash661 on the Exponential Function, that has already finished as a hopeless exercise in futility.

I won't distract from the OP topic any further and just follow it with interest and an "open mind". I may ask a few questions.

 

[Write4U]

Hi billvon.

Thanks for being serious, for once.

But you are *WAY* incorrect, according to the Etp model. Over the next 5 years or so, the oil price will continue to drop. The oil industry and the general economy will shrink. By 2021, oil will no longer be an energy source for civilization.

Here is the how the Etp model is performing as far as forecasting the price of oil:

The price of oil remains below the Etp maximum oil price curve, as correctly forecast by the model. By around 2021, oil will reach the "zero state" as an energy source.

Our forecasts are radically different, billvon. We should know pretty soon who is right. ---Futilitist

I hope this is topical.
Question: is the red line representative of the price of oil (per barrel) or the total amount spent on a diminishing available supply, regardless of price per barrel?

 

[Futilitist]

Thanks, Write4U. I appreciate the thoughtful comment.

Like I said before, if you really are interested in oil depletion, it makes sense to get up to date. The Etp model offers the best way to get a real handle on the timing and shape of future oil depletion. For a long time, we have had to rely on wild assed guesses, but now we have a thermodynamic model that is highly accurate. The Etp model forecast is shocking to most people. It is much more alarming than what most people have become comfortable talking about in the ongoing energy debates.

---EDIT---

You posted while I was responding to your last post. Please see my next post to you.



---Futilitist

 

[billvon]

Thanks for at least trying to be serious, for once.

Wasn't talking to you. But anyway . . .

But you are *WAY* incorrect, according to the Etp model. Over the next 5 years or so, the oil price will continue to drop. The oil industry and the general economy will shrink. By 2021, oil will no longer be an energy source for civilization.

When that doesn't happen, will you be able to admit you were wrong?

 

[Futilitist]

Question: is the red line representative of the price of oil (per barrel) or the total amount spent on a diminishing available supply?

It is the price of oil per barrel, in dollars.

The Etp curve represents the thermodynamic maximum oil price. It is a best case scenario. The actual price could be substantially lower, depending on how the economy handles the shock of the net energy decline.


---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

When that doesn't happen, will you be able to admit you were wrong?

Sure.

When it does happen, will you be able to admit that you are wrong?

Here is my long term oil price forecast:

Could you please supply a graph with your oil price forecast for side by side comparison? Thanks.



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

...what do people here see as the future of oil over the next 10-20 years?

For the first 10 years, Saudi Arabia will remain the x-factor, retaining a significant, but waning ability to manipulate the oil market. If they choose, they can keep the price relatively low for perhaps 10 years, but that will make their demise come sooner, make the downslope steeper and reduce their total oil profits. They'd be better off accepting their reduced role and accepting the higher profits that comes with it. Will they? Probably not.

So I see the expansion of the shale oil revolution proceeding somewhat slower than forecast a year ago, as long as SA keeps their stomach and keeps prices low, but overall, oil will likely be cheap and plentiful for at least the next decade. That seems in-line with your prediction of slow increases in price - indeed, we seem to agree that the next decade will include the most stable oil prices we've seen in a generation - and with that, the pressure to reduce consumption eases, so consumption will rise. Your equilibrium price of $70 a barrel in the next decade or two is right about where I'd put it.

It's actually a really exciting time for our oil prospects. Our energy future is more secure than it has been my entire life. That gives us more time and flexibility to dabble in renewable energy pipe-dreams for a while, rather than pursuing actually viable alternatives.

 

[billvon]

For the first 10 years, Saudi Arabia will remain the x-factor, retaining a significant, but waning ability to manipulate the oil market.

I think that has already waned past the point of being the primary factor in pricing. They've effectively lost control of oil prices, and their recent increase in pumping will merely deplete their own reserves sooner while not harming fracking all that much.

It's actually a really exciting time for our oil prospects. Our energy future is more secure than it has been my entire life. That gives us more time and flexibility to dabble in renewable energy pipe-dreams for a while, rather than pursuing actually viable alternatives.

My big worry back 20 years ago was that we would get to a point where we hit peak oil with no viable replacements. Since that time not only have we found a way to extend our oil supply another few decades (through fracking) but have gotten to the point where technologies like EV's are practical and indeed are commercially viable. That takes away much of the single-source fears, where loss of a single commodity could destroy civilization as we know it. With fracking, the price will rise gradually as more and more difficult reserves are discovered, allowing a slower transition to alternatives.