Uh oh. He was right!
But I want a car powered by liquid hydrogen...
But I want a car powered by liquid hydrogen...
The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed
- Thread starter Futilitist
- Start date
- Status
I worked in the oil industry for 40 years. I agree with you that it's much more nuanced than my comments would indicate yet I remember the PAC I was expected to join. They were spreading the word. I was probably the only liberal working in the management of the refinery I was associated with. Yet I became a member of the PAC I was expected to join. LOL. So what oil company did you work for? Only if it's ok with you to mention it. I finished my career in the oil industry with an independent refiner Valero Energy Corporation. They were pretty good actually paying real attention to safety and environmental compliance throughout our daily operations. This was a big deal for years. Paying lip service to such things that cost them money but the industry has changed for the better with the attention that OSHA pays to the industry. Don't tell me it's BP. Just kiddin.
So, Futitlitist, the ETP model by BW HILL, did you order from his site? No respectable scientist would sell their "work" to an unwitting public but rather get it published in a reputable journal. Is his "work" published in a journal or did you get scammed?
This conspiracy theory came up before. But it really makes no sense at all.
You guys thought I was nuts long before I presented the Etp model. If I were actually BWHill, would it be a good strategy for me to push the Etp model with Futilitist as a spokesman?!
Think about it.If I were BWHill, I would obviously present the model myself. But BWHill is a very serious engineer who would never post in a place like this. So, it's a catch-22. You guys are lucky I am here.
I met BWHill when I was posting on peakoilbarrel.com. You can check it out for your self.
Even Russ_Watters agrees that I am not BWHill.
I am not obsessed with pushing the Etp model. I am interested in people's reactions to the bad news.
I did not buy it. BWHill gave me a copy.
It is not science. It is applied science. It is an engineering report.
I don't know much about the history, but I believe the model was originally financed by a large private entity. Part of the original contract allows BWHill to sell copies of the report. It is pretty cheap. From what I understand, it goes for about 30 dollars. It's not exactly a best seller. It is a dry, detailed engineering report. I don't think BWHill is getting rich selling it.
The report is about 65 pages long, in pdf format. It gives a very detailed description of the methodology used to create the Etp model. It is written for people with a pretty high level of technical understanding (engineering and physics), but given some study, it should make sense to most people.
I think the design of the Etp model is elegant and brilliant. I have read the complete report multiple times and I can't find any flaws in the model.
But I am not here to try to get people to buy the report. I don't care one way or the other, although I really do wish that Russ_Watters would buy a copy. He would be amazed.
I am a social theorist. I study various aspects of deep denial. People here are obviously highly biased against the Etp model. I am studying the best arguments (and strategies) that gung-ho, BAU, authoritarian, right wing outfits (like this corporate funded, pseudo-science propaganda house) can muster against the Etp model.
So far, it is totally fascinating.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Ah interesting background. In my case it was Shell, in the UK, Dubai, Houston TX and the Netherlands. I can honestly say I have never encountered any scepticism about climate change within the company over my 30 odd years with them, though of course there was a lot of debate about what the strategic implications of it would be for a fossil fuel company. BP has been similar so far as I can see. I'm less sure about Total Fina Elf but then that is more recently assembled group of companies.
I was shocked, though, when I had my Houston assignment around 2000, to discover how widespread climate change scepticism was in the US and, separately, how crude and grossly self-interested the lobbying from the US oil companies to government was. I suspect it is just a feature of the US political system that everyone argues aggressively for his own narrow business interests and then one sees who wins each fiercely fought battle. Oil companies simply cannot do that sort of thing elsewhere - it would be suicide in terms of public image, for one thing.
Shell has evidently now decided what to do: bet the farm on a shift to gas - hence the recent BG acquisition. It also seems to be trying to harness its upstream expertise for CCS, though without regulatory help it is hard to see this getting off the ground commercially. They also toy with renewables, but it does not seem clear what a company such as Shell brings to the party. Possibly offshore expertise is useful for anchoring wind turbines and so forth, but it seems a bit tenuous.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
One last request: Assuming you are correct, what is the purpose and practical use of the theory?I am a social theorist. I study various aspects of deep denial. People here are obviously highly biased against the Etp model. I am studying the best arguments (and strategies) that gung-ho, BAU, authoritarian, right wing outfits (like this corporate funded, pseudo-science propaganda house) can muster against the Etp model. So far, it is totally fascinating.
Apparently, the right to say "I told you so".
In case anyone is interested,
BWHill will not say out loud that we are headed for collapse because of the net energy loss as oil approaches the "zero state". He and I have actually argued (in a respectful, thoughtful way) about the topic. I introduce the Maximum Power Principle into the discussion to assert that, on the way down in terms of net energy, it will be much harder to maintain the remarkable efficiency (oil price vs. energy returned) that was possible on the way up. But the discussion mainly revolves around BWHill's forecast concerning the future mining of the embedded energy of the petroleum production system and it's effect on the oil price. I strongly disagree with BWHill on this point (yet we don't make fun of each other or call each other names).
I highlighted a paragraph for exchemist concerning how the economic law of supply and demand aligns harmoniously with the second law of thermodynamics of the Etp model. Physics determines what is physically possible, and economics is our blind way of finding the perfect price discovery over time for our species to most efficiently follow the Maximum Power Principle! It boggles the mind. Perhaps Russ_Watters might also be interested this.
http://peakoil.com/forums/the-etp-model-q-a-t70563-200.html#p1262356
Re: The Etp Model, Q & A
by Whatever » Fri 07 Aug 2015, 16:08:19
Hi BW,
You said:
"I understand the behavior of a strange attractor, and a strange repeller, but you are ignoring, and need to incorporate into your model design, the imbedded energy in the world's infrastructure. We calculate that to be 1.38 x 10^19 BTU. A some point the world will begin to viscously cannibalize that energy to keep oil production going. Drilling rigs will be run until parts start falling off, pipeline will be used until they can no longer hold oil, and refiners will operate until they burn down from lack of maintenance. Perhaps only 15 to 20% of that energy can ever be retrieved, but what can will be."
I understand your calculation and I do believe such cannibalization will occur. It is just a natural extension of the current cutbacks in the oil industry. However, I do not believe it will effect the oil price the way you think it will.
Here is my logic:
The embedded energy in the oil production system is not actual energy. It offers no actual boost to the economy, and hence has no effect on the consumer's oil affordability. All it can do is help the producers to stay in business a little longer by cutting costs which cannot be passed on to the consumer.
The effect of oil industry cost cutting on oil prices is already baked into your model. Consumers are currently experiencing maximum affordability. Producers are already cutting back. They are already viciously cannibalizing future oil production. Yet the oil price continues to fall. If this trend continues, the entire economic system will likely collapse before the oil production system reaches the final stage of cannibalism you project.
Thermodynamically speaking, the embedded energy in the oil production system was already expended once and cannot be expended again. It has already had it's effect on the oil price. It is not actual energy, so it cannot be mined as actual energy, only as a last gasp accounting trick. Since it is not actual energy, it's mining can have very little effect (slight delay) on the thermodynamic system that determines the oil price.
And any mining of the embedded energy in the oil production system that could take place beyond the Max Affordability curve would have to be energetically subsidized by other forms of energy. These other forms of energy will also have to make up for the all of the loss of net energy for civilization due to the loss of oil as an energy source. I don't think any of that is remotely possible.
In non-linear system dynamics, they refer to chaordic structures.
These arise in nature out of the Maximum Power Principle, which adds a time element to the second law of thermodynamics. Chaordic structures form and reinforce themselves to capture energy gradients and slow down the thermodynamic heat transfer. This is what life does. It is how complexity arises in nature.
Chaordic structures are inherently unstable due to entropy. When chaordic structures begin to experience diminishing energy returns they either jump to a higher energy state or they collapse. Our civilization is one gigantic chaordic structure.
The maximum volatility for the oil price occurred as the system passed through the singularity (Etp curves intersection point) and control of the price passed from the strange attractor to the strange repeller. I don't see any evidence to assume that another attractor exists. The whole system is running out of energy. The price should just get less volatile from here on out.
I think the Etp model correctly and sufficiently defines the thermodynamic limits of our modern civilization. Your embedded energy calculation is not a direct implication of the Etp model. It is an add on and, thus, must be separately justified. And, even if it were true, we are in for some very hard times either way.
---Futilitist
BWHill will not say out loud that we are headed for collapse because of the net energy loss as oil approaches the "zero state". He and I have actually argued (in a respectful, thoughtful way) about the topic. I introduce the Maximum Power Principle into the discussion to assert that, on the way down in terms of net energy, it will be much harder to maintain the remarkable efficiency (oil price vs. energy returned) that was possible on the way up. But the discussion mainly revolves around BWHill's forecast concerning the future mining of the embedded energy of the petroleum production system and it's effect on the oil price. I strongly disagree with BWHill on this point (yet we don't make fun of each other or call each other names).
I highlighted a paragraph for exchemist concerning how the economic law of supply and demand aligns harmoniously with the second law of thermodynamics of the Etp model. Physics determines what is physically possible, and economics is our blind way of finding the perfect price discovery over time for our species to most efficiently follow the Maximum Power Principle! It boggles the mind. Perhaps Russ_Watters might also be interested this.
http://peakoil.com/forums/the-etp-model-q-a-t70563-200.html#p1262356
Re: The Etp Model, Q & A
by Whatever » Fri 07 Aug 2015, 16:08:19Hi BW,
You said:
"I understand the behavior of a strange attractor, and a strange repeller, but you are ignoring, and need to incorporate into your model design, the imbedded energy in the world's infrastructure. We calculate that to be 1.38 x 10^19 BTU. A some point the world will begin to viscously cannibalize that energy to keep oil production going. Drilling rigs will be run until parts start falling off, pipeline will be used until they can no longer hold oil, and refiners will operate until they burn down from lack of maintenance. Perhaps only 15 to 20% of that energy can ever be retrieved, but what can will be."
I understand your calculation and I do believe such cannibalization will occur. It is just a natural extension of the current cutbacks in the oil industry. However, I do not believe it will effect the oil price the way you think it will.
Here is my logic:
The embedded energy in the oil production system is not actual energy. It offers no actual boost to the economy, and hence has no effect on the consumer's oil affordability. All it can do is help the producers to stay in business a little longer by cutting costs which cannot be passed on to the consumer.
The effect of oil industry cost cutting on oil prices is already baked into your model. Consumers are currently experiencing maximum affordability. Producers are already cutting back. They are already viciously cannibalizing future oil production. Yet the oil price continues to fall. If this trend continues, the entire economic system will likely collapse before the oil production system reaches the final stage of cannibalism you project.
Thermodynamically speaking, the embedded energy in the oil production system was already expended once and cannot be expended again. It has already had it's effect on the oil price. It is not actual energy, so it cannot be mined as actual energy, only as a last gasp accounting trick. Since it is not actual energy, it's mining can have very little effect (slight delay) on the thermodynamic system that determines the oil price.
And any mining of the embedded energy in the oil production system that could take place beyond the Max Affordability curve would have to be energetically subsidized by other forms of energy. These other forms of energy will also have to make up for the all of the loss of net energy for civilization due to the loss of oil as an energy source. I don't think any of that is remotely possible.
In non-linear system dynamics, they refer to chaordic structures.
These arise in nature out of the Maximum Power Principle, which adds a time element to the second law of thermodynamics. Chaordic structures form and reinforce themselves to capture energy gradients and slow down the thermodynamic heat transfer. This is what life does. It is how complexity arises in nature.
Chaordic structures are inherently unstable due to entropy. When chaordic structures begin to experience diminishing energy returns they either jump to a higher energy state or they collapse. Our civilization is one gigantic chaordic structure.
The maximum volatility for the oil price occurred as the system passed through the singularity (Etp curves intersection point) and control of the price passed from the strange attractor to the strange repeller. I don't see any evidence to assume that another attractor exists. The whole system is running out of energy. The price should just get less volatile from here on out.
I think the Etp model correctly and sufficiently defines the thermodynamic limits of our modern civilization. Your embedded energy calculation is not a direct implication of the Etp model. It is an add on and, thus, must be separately justified. And, even if it were true, we are in for some very hard times either way.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
continued:
Re: The Etp Model, Q & A
by shortonoil » Sat 08 Aug 2015, 07:14:42
Whatever said:
"The embedded energy in the oil production system is not actual energy."
You are forgetting the First Law; Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. A BTU is a BTU no matter were it comes from. Entropy production reduces its availability, but it is never lost. The energy that was put into the infrastructure needed to produce petroleum can be taken back out, of course, at a very high rate of loss. That extraction process takes place by wearing it out, and not replacing it. What is used is the internal energy increase of the infrastructure when it was built. The same can be said for anything used in the production of petroleum, roads, bridges, pipelines, etc.
T dS = dU + p dV : (in differential form)
since dV = 0 the change in T ds must come from dU.
The internal energy of the infrastructure is extracted to produce petroleum, and its products.
Re: The Etp Model, Q & A
by Whatever » Sat 08 Aug 2015, 15:53:39
Hi BW.
I understand the first law. I agree that a BTU is a BTU no matter where it comes from. But I don't think that cannibalizing the oil industry adds BTUs to the thermodynamic loop that determines the oil price. I think it should be treated separately.
When the energy was originally expended to create the oil production infrastructure, money was spent which created economic activity as a byproduct. This positively effected the oil price. Cannibalizing the leftover embedded energy means not spending money that would otherwise be spent. That will have a negative effect on the economy, not a positive one.
Physics ultimately creates the economic conditions in which the market forces of supply and demand align themselves to cause the oil price to rise or fall. Thus, the currently oversupplied market is behaving quite logically according to both physics and economics. The extend and pretend gift of more credit for the oil producers just allows oil to continue to be produced at a loss. This has the perverse effect of keeping the oil supply artificially high, which tends to further depress the oil price. Catch-22. When the oil companies run out of credit they will begin mining the embedded energy in the oil production system in order to keep producing at a loss. But this will have the same effect on oil prices that loose credit currently does, i.e. it will depress the oil price while keeping the production system running at a loss. Just as you don't factor credit creation or central bank policy into your physics model now, you should not suddenly add in the BTUs that would result from cannibalization.
Entropy does not rest. The Max Affordability curve does not stop at zero. It continues past zero to become more and more negative. The EROEI of oil will not stop declining. What was once an EROEI of 100:1 in the days of Spindle Top, will drop to 1:1 in 2021. If the system could subsidize it, I guess the EROEI could theoretically continue to drop to 1:100 and beyond. But where does all the energy come from to subsidize oil to that extent? If it were possible for other energy sources to make up the net energy gap, it would be happening already and the price of oil would be well over $100/barrel.
Once oil reaches the zero state in 2021, every barrel used only subtracts from the economy. This can only further depress the price.
The economy is getting weaker, causing the oil price to fall, causing the economy to get weaker. Lather, rinse, repeat. This positive feedback was set in motion by the great phase change of 2012. That phase change signals the end of economic growth. It can only get worse from here. Our civilization has begun to collapse.
---Futilitist
PS---You said: "(BC) is using the Etp Model to substantiate his technical analysis. That is a reasonable approach: validating art with science."
I am using the science of your Etp model to substantiate the large body of science that leads me to believe we are in collapse. Validating science with more science. I am actually validating one model with another: The Limits to Growth model validated by the Etp model. What do you think of my approach?
------------------------------------------------
Anyway, just a little food for thought. In case anyone is hungry.
---Futilitist
Re: The Etp Model, Q & A
by shortonoil » Sat 08 Aug 2015, 07:14:42Whatever said:
"The embedded energy in the oil production system is not actual energy."
You are forgetting the First Law; Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. A BTU is a BTU no matter were it comes from. Entropy production reduces its availability, but it is never lost. The energy that was put into the infrastructure needed to produce petroleum can be taken back out, of course, at a very high rate of loss. That extraction process takes place by wearing it out, and not replacing it. What is used is the internal energy increase of the infrastructure when it was built. The same can be said for anything used in the production of petroleum, roads, bridges, pipelines, etc.
T dS = dU + p dV : (in differential form)
since dV = 0 the change in T ds must come from dU.
The internal energy of the infrastructure is extracted to produce petroleum, and its products.
Re: The Etp Model, Q & A
by Whatever » Sat 08 Aug 2015, 15:53:39Hi BW.
I understand the first law. I agree that a BTU is a BTU no matter where it comes from. But I don't think that cannibalizing the oil industry adds BTUs to the thermodynamic loop that determines the oil price. I think it should be treated separately.
When the energy was originally expended to create the oil production infrastructure, money was spent which created economic activity as a byproduct. This positively effected the oil price. Cannibalizing the leftover embedded energy means not spending money that would otherwise be spent. That will have a negative effect on the economy, not a positive one.
Physics ultimately creates the economic conditions in which the market forces of supply and demand align themselves to cause the oil price to rise or fall. Thus, the currently oversupplied market is behaving quite logically according to both physics and economics. The extend and pretend gift of more credit for the oil producers just allows oil to continue to be produced at a loss. This has the perverse effect of keeping the oil supply artificially high, which tends to further depress the oil price. Catch-22. When the oil companies run out of credit they will begin mining the embedded energy in the oil production system in order to keep producing at a loss. But this will have the same effect on oil prices that loose credit currently does, i.e. it will depress the oil price while keeping the production system running at a loss. Just as you don't factor credit creation or central bank policy into your physics model now, you should not suddenly add in the BTUs that would result from cannibalization.
Entropy does not rest. The Max Affordability curve does not stop at zero. It continues past zero to become more and more negative. The EROEI of oil will not stop declining. What was once an EROEI of 100:1 in the days of Spindle Top, will drop to 1:1 in 2021. If the system could subsidize it, I guess the EROEI could theoretically continue to drop to 1:100 and beyond. But where does all the energy come from to subsidize oil to that extent? If it were possible for other energy sources to make up the net energy gap, it would be happening already and the price of oil would be well over $100/barrel.
Once oil reaches the zero state in 2021, every barrel used only subtracts from the economy. This can only further depress the price.
The economy is getting weaker, causing the oil price to fall, causing the economy to get weaker. Lather, rinse, repeat. This positive feedback was set in motion by the great phase change of 2012. That phase change signals the end of economic growth. It can only get worse from here. Our civilization has begun to collapse.
---Futilitist
PS---You said: "(BC) is using the Etp Model to substantiate his technical analysis. That is a reasonable approach: validating art with science."
I am using the science of your Etp model to substantiate the large body of science that leads me to believe we are in collapse. Validating science with more science. I am actually validating one model with another: The Limits to Growth model validated by the Etp model. What do you think of my approach?
------------------------------------------------
Anyway, just a little food for thought. In case anyone is hungry.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Great question, Write4U. Thank you.
Here is what BWHill says (from the Etp book):
"Although qualitative indicators point to the world's oil reserves being in an advanced stage of depletion, the investor/planner needs more than qualitative reports about the petroleum depletion event. They need quantitative estimates about what to expect from its price and availability over a period great enough to plan and execute a project. With capital difficult, and expensive to procure an energy surprise has gained the capacity to place many projects, that would have otherwise excelled, over budget and behind schedule. The scope of any project of significant duration can not today be effectively ascertained without considering the potential impact of the depletion of our most widely used and efficacious commodity. Depletion: A determination for the world's petroleum reserve provides the planner and astute investor with the specific information they will need to define and effectively pursue their objectives!"
...
"Petroleum depletion is further advanced, and its production will decline faster than generally assumed. Conventional reservoir appraisal methods are founded on First Law premises, but neglect Second Law effects. Although extremely applicative to individual field analysis, when applied to the status of the world's petroleum reserve they produce inconsistent results. In consequence, the last 25% of the world's energy supplying reserve will be orders of magnitude more costly to produce than was the first 25%. The advancing depletion of the world's petroleum reserve could bring about changes of a magnitude that have not been witnessed for millennium! To navigate this conflicting, and difficult era an understanding of the events taking place will be essential. It is our hope that this report will contribute to that endeavor."
~BWHill
Civilization is very complex. We need good forecasting tools to plan effectively. Our survival depends on it. If we just ignore the bad news all the time, and pretend everything is fine, we will surely be blind sided. Hoping for the best is okay as long as you plan for the worst.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
That site is crappy to navigate. I saw 30 dollars and I also saw $ 69. Two different things?
But anyway, assuming everyone, or the vast majority of posters here are in denial. What exactly are we in denial of? Is it the apocalypse, oil depletion, or both?
Last edited:
Specifically, in this case, both. But in the most general terms, neither. At our core, we are simply in denial of the truth.
Humans are afraid of it. We always have been. We just don't like bad news. We prefer happy stories.
Our species has a profound optimism bias which often prevents us from seeing the world as it actually is. It probably comes directly from the moral instinct common to all social animals. We really want things to be fair. But nature really, really doesn't give a shit about us. Life is not fair. We don't like that. So we project our best hopes on to everything. Especially the future.
When applied to groups, our individual optimism biases combine to form Groupthink. This leads to group suppression of any unpalatable truth.
In our little experiment, I, an outsider, walked into your peaceful little village with a whole heap of bad news. You guys clearly want to kill the messenger. That is a sign of something very interesting.
I was sure the Etp model was valid before I presented it here. Now I am more sure. Based on the instinctive aversion to it displayed here, I suspect that intelligent people, deep down, instinctively fear that the Etp model might be valid as well.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
OK.
I didn't know you edited your post.
You think too much of yourself. It is you that is delusional. That would be the truth. Do you deny it?
I don't believe everyone in this thread cares for me. But I value that they don't view me as Chicken Little.
Do you really think that no one cares about the future of our planet? Our children, our children's children?
You think too much of yourself. It is you that is delusional. That would be the truth. Do you deny it?
I don't believe everyone in this thread cares for me. But I value that they don't view me as Chicken Little.
Do you really think that no one cares about the future of our planet? Our children, our children's children?
And...?
I did not take your "OK" as a sign of agreement with me. I doubt anyone else did either. In the context of the thread, I took it as a baffled acknowledgement that I had answered your question, however weird my answer might appear.
Of course. Just as you do.
Interesting. This must be very important to you. Why?
Is it always wrong to be Chicken Little?
(And also, when you say: "I don't believe everyone in this thread cares for me", perhaps you subconsciously mean anyone, but you can't admit that to yourself. So you are really just being overly optimistic yet again.)
Of course not. I never said any such thing. We all have the best intentions.
But having the right knowledge is the key to getting the best results.
Unfortunately, it all boils down to the key philosophic question of what we actually know.
This is a case of $$E_{TP}$$ $$E$$pistemology!
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Your reply is meaningless.
Do you mean meaningless to you, or actually completely meaningless, as in gibberish?
---Futilitist
Whatever.
OK.
- Status