The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[krash661]

"Predictions:
Oil prices will begin to creep-up over the next 6 months or so on their own as existing wells dry up and new ones DON'T come online (individual wells don't last long). Then a new equilibrium would be reached somewhere between today's and last year's prices."
~Russ_Watters
April 10, 2015.
Brent Crude price: $56.81

Today's Brent Crude price: $47.71



---Futilitist

what's funny about this so-called prediction is, this is a normal cycle. so far every thing you have claimed is only from natural cycles.
consumption and prices rise in summer and drop during winter. also brent is overseas, wti is usa. then there's opec.

 

[exchemist]

I am sure the today's technology can predict with some accuracy how much oil can still be extracted from the untapped reserves, but according to the stockmarket, "futures" are highly speculative and can yield great profits or great financial loss.

Then there are the unforseen mishaps (uncalculated disasters) such as in the Gulf of Mexico, for using cheap substitutes instead of more expensive but more reliable extraction practises. How much did that spill cost the economy in actual loss of oil , as well as the clean up and cost to the fishing industries, and who ends up paying for that? Does that have anything to do with thermodynamics?

Futilitist, much as I am trying to understand the connection between Thermodynamics, oil production and transport, and variables, the cost of which can render all predictions practically useless by the addition of billions of dollars to the cost of production from unintended consequenses.

Perhaps I am missing the point, but as yet I have not been able to tie thermodynamics in with production of natural resources, other than as a result of the direct impact of emission of actual activities which affect the thermodynamics and only then can be calculated with some precision.

Let me give a simple equation. If I have 2 gallons of gasoline, I have an calculable potential for energy by the laws of thermodynamics.. Now if I try to pour both gallons in a larger container and I spill half a gallon in the process, my original calculation of inherent potential is no longer valid and must be recalculated after the fact. It is in that stage where I lose ability to understand the connection between the two with any precision. Forgive me, when I sound off topic, but when an equation uses three sets of activities, it seems to me all three must be considered at the same time, else it just becomes an educated guess, hoping nothing will go wrong. And it always does, eventually.

I'm sure your instinct on this is quite right. The "production and processing system", or whatever it's called in this "model", is NOT a finite thermodynamic system - it's an open-ended and ill-defined area of a whole economy. It is thus impossible to define thermodynamically valid boundaries to it.

The whole thing is an attempt to hijack the 2nd Law of TD into a Peak Oiler's prediction of doom, in order to make it look scientifically incontrovertible. (In fact, I suspect nobody would have devoted so much energy to attacking it if it had not been for the monstrous injustice - to any caring scientist - of trying to co-opt a fundamental law of physics into something so obviously tendentious and political.)

 

[Futilitist]

The whole thing is an attempt to hijack the 2nd Law of TD into a Peak Oiler's prediction of doom, in order to make it look scientifically incontrovertible. (In fact, I suspect nobody would have devoted so much energy to attacking it if it had not been for the monstrous injustice - to any caring scientist - of trying to co-opt a fundamental law of physics into something so obviously tendentious and political.)

You are a pompous ass, IMHO.

So you see yourself as some sort of anointed defender of science?

Then why must you always resort to deception in your arguments? That isn't the way a good scientist would act.

For example, you just keep repeating your opinions over and over without any support:

I'm sure your instinct on this is quite right. The "production and processing system", or whatever it's called in this "model", is NOT a finite thermodynamic system - it's an open-ended and ill-defined area of a whole economy. It is thus impossible to define thermodynamically valid boundaries to it.

WHY?

It is not sufficient to just keep repeating your personal opinion.

I answered your argument already in a prior post:

Exchemist.

Thanks for summarizing your arguments:

1) the misguided attempt to apply an entropy calculation to a thermodynamic "system" that is not finite.

I don't think you understand how the Etp model is designed. It uses three nested control volumes.

"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

You must now explain specifically why the three nested control volumes used in the Etp model are not valid.

And, while you are at it, please explain why a model that you keep saying couldn't possibly work keeps working, nonetheless. The Etp model uses your beloved laws of thermodynamics to correctly forecast the yearly average oil price from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised. The model is logical and well designed. It should fill your heart with scientific pride! You are just denying reality and expecting people to take your word.

Why should we trust you, while not trusting our own eyes and common sense?



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Who Can Spot The Trend?

This is a graph of the oil price with a 365 day moving average.

Something has changed.

The Etp model explains what happened. And what to expect from here on.

Firmly anchored by the second law of thermodynamics, with a 96.5% accuracy, the Etp model is a hell of a lot better than the wild assed guesses and fantasies on display from other "defenders of science" that populate this fine forum:

"Predictions:
Oil prices will begin to creep-up over the next 6 months or so on their own as existing wells dry up and new ones DON'T come online (individual wells don't last long). Then a new equilibrium would be reached somewhere between today's and last year's prices. That may satisfy the Saudis, but I don't think so.

I predict that the Saudis will "crack the whip" in the second half of this year, reducing production, sending supplies way down and shooting prices way up. It will just be volatility (it won't be permanent), but we are due for our next recession, and that should be enough to make it happen."
~Russ_Watters, April 10, 2015.

At the time of this amazing prediction, Brent Crude cost $56.81/barrel. Today, 5 months later, Brent Crude sells for $46.50/barrel. Technically, there is still about a month left to go on this Nostradamus-like prediction, but so far the oil price has gone down, not up. I don't hear any Saudi whips cracking yet, either!

And nice hedge on the upcoming recession, BTW. Just for the record, I predicted a recession, too (for real reasons). If one does happen soon, I will still be *WAY* more right than you!

When you get back from your little hiatus, perhaps you could pull out your crystal ball and try again, Russ.




---Futilitist

 

[krash661]

Who Can Spot The Trend?

This is a graph of the oil price with a 365 day moving average.

Something has changed.

The Etp model explains what happened. And what to expect from here on.

actually your chart clearly shows oil will range between 70 and 80 [possibly 90 as a hurdle] in the 3rd year[2018]. once this range that's developing a bottom[40-50 area], it will move to its next range which will be 70-90 area. 90 being a ceiling to break through.
my question is what does this etp predict ?

moving averages ARE ALWAYS a lagging indicator.

 

[Futilitist]

moving averages ARE ALWAYS a lagging indicator.

You are a lagging indicator.



---Futilitist

 

[krash661]

You are a lagging indicator.

what a hilarious joke you continue to be. i actually have a series 7.
oh by the way what a nice attempt to dodge my question with a diverting elementary remark.
especially after this line,Who Can Spot The Trend?.
shrugs.

edit-
now i have to assume this etp is massively incorrect. why else would you dodge my question ?
since i made my prediction and you did not use this ept line to make a prediction.
why is that ?

anyways, this is comical, especially after you making this pathetic comment,Why should we trust you, while not trusting our own eyes and common sense?

 

[krash661]

be honest.. all this etp line is, is nothing more than a moving average.. correct ?
that's exactly why you made that elementary sidestepping comment, correct ?
like i said, moving averages are always an lagging indicator.

the bottom line is put money where your mouth is.
buy or short an oil contract using this etp model. make money then brag and show how we're all wrong.
lose money and backpedal and divert and all that other nonsense,[which is already occurring] correct ?
now a new question, would you even tell anyone if you did lose money due to this line of shiit ?
how do we know you losing money with this etp has not already happened ?
all in all, the bottom line is money.
make money... money talks and bullshiit walks , is the old saying.

 

[krash661]

not only all that, that i just typed, but your chart clearly shows how the moving average is lagging, on the chart itself.
shrugs.

 

[Futilitist]

anyways, this is comical, especially after you making this pathetic comment,Why should we trust you, while not trusting our own eyes and common sense?

What is comical and pathetic is your stupid, transparent diversionary tactic.

I was talking to exchemist. Are you exchemist? How come exchemist can't answer for himself? How do you guys coordinate? Who do you work for? Do they give you a script?

You should already know what the Etp model predicts because I have posted it at least a dozen times. Here it is yet again:

The price of oil will continue to decline. Oil will reach the "zero state" as an energy source in 2021. The price of oil will generally not exceed the red Etp Maximum Price Curve from now on.

If you want to know how the Etp model works, you should read the thread. We have been talking about how the model works for 27 pages. I have patiently and sufficiently explained it over and over. If you don't understand it by now, I am afraid I can't help you any further.



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

[Lies skipped for now]
Ok, fine, I concede: your crackpot sources are about as good as the chemtrails and anti-vax crackpots. Big win for you!

For everyone's info; I'm traveling for work for the next week (busy suppressing The Truth and a 100 mpg carburetor), so my participation here will be inconsistent. Not that there'should really anything new anyway, but I do enjoy a crackpot roast! Have fun with the Fute while I'm gone!

Yes, well, to give you a progress report, we are now in bold, the font size continues to increase, and we are occasionally getting text in red now…..but it's still just repeating the same old stuff, except that we now have a definition of the famous PPS: "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." How the hell you make that into a finite thermodynamic system beats me, given that is is distributed throughout the environment.

 

[krash661]

What is comical and pathetic is your stupid, transparent diversionary tactic.

if knowledge and experience is "transparent diversionary tactic " then i preffer this.
shrugs.
is this all you have ?, that's it, nothing more than continuous elementary responses to knowledge and experience ?
no wonder why you're contradicting.

I was talking to exchemist. Are you exchemist? How come exchemist can't answer for himself? How do you guys coordinate? Who do you work for? Do they give you a script?

hilarious, what a typical diversion from answering something that will prove you completely wrong.
shrugs.

You should already know what the Etp model predicts because I have posted it at least a dozen times. Here it is yet again:

well, if there was such a prediction, then you should be able to calculate it, then tell, EXACTLY LIKE WHAT I DID. why are you not doing so?
why are you continuing to show this insignificant graph ? that line only show negative slpoe, pleas pridict points during this time frame, it's that simple, obvious pathetic one.
again, experience is what divides the idiots from the true knowledgable ones. do you have any experience as a trader or such?
of course not and the obvious answer is, it's because you know yourself how fictitious you are.
shrugs.

The price of oil will continue to decline.

i made my prediction, where's yours ?

[ Oil will reach the "zero state" as an energy source in 2021. The price of oil will generally not exceed the red Etp Maximum Price Curve from now on.

except it already has exceed the red on smaller time frames. also, what are cross rates and how are they significant to global oil trade?
please do not sidestep this with another elementary remark.

If you want to know how the Etp model works,

as i have already explained, it's only, simply a moving average, moving averages are always lagging, just like your exact chart already shows.
shrugs.

you should read the thread. We have been talking about how the model works for 27 pages.

and reality has already shown this line to be wrong as we speak. what we call predictions, not a calculation of what already happens, this is usually referred to as deceiving.
shrugs.

I have patiently and sufficiently explained it over and over. If you don't understand it by now, I am afraid I can't help you any further.

except i'm not asking for a explanation of this line. i'm clearly asking for your own prediction from this model.
now quit diverting and make a prediction using your worthy [fictitious] model.. is it not that simple ?
now enough of your shenanigans, make your own prediction using this model, simple right ? yes only if one actually understands, correct ?

 

[Futilitist]

Yes, well, to give you a progress report, we are now in bold, the font size continues to increase, and we are occasionally getting text in red now…..but it's still just repeating the same old stuff...

And that is the logical outcome of your evasive, dishonest tactics. I think I am being very patient, considering. Quit dodging!

except that we now have a definition of the famous PPS:

Bullshit. You have had that definition since April, when I posted it in the original Etp model thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/oi...modynamics-the-etp-model.145678/#post-3291111

"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." How the hell you make that into a finite thermodynamic system beats me, given that is is distributed throughout the environment.

You are clearly admitting that you don't understand the three nested control volumes used in the Etp model. That is not a very good argument. It is an argument from willful ignorance, astonishment, and arrogance.

Anyway, all you did was dodge the question yet again and make fun of the Etp model. You didn't say anything in reference to this part that comes right before the part you quoted:

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.

So, the quote above answers your objection. You are just ignoring my answers and repeating your objections. And you are doing it on purpose. That is what I meant when I said you were being deceptive. Scientists do not behave this way.

It is incumbent upon you to answer the question you are squirming so hard trying to dodge. It is large and in red so the readers can be made aware of your constantly deceptive, disingenuous tactics. If you don't like my graphic design sense, why don't you just answer the fucking question?

So, why are the three nested control volumes used in the Etp model invalid?

You must now explain specifically why the three nested control volumes used in the Etp model are not valid.

You are just faking an argument. And it is obvious. And tiresome.

Oh and, don't forget to say something about this bit:

And, while you are at it, please explain why a model that you keep saying couldn't possibly work keeps working, nonetheless. The Etp model uses your beloved laws of thermodynamics to correctly forecast the yearly average oil price from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised. The model is logical and well designed. It should fill your heart with scientific pride! You are just denying reality and expecting people to take your word.

Why should we trust you, while not trusting our own eyes and common sense?

Using only the production history of oil and the second law of thermodynamics, the Etp model has accurately forecast the price of oil with an accuracy of 96.5%. So, if we accept that the oil production history is at least reasonably accurate, and we accept that the laws of thermodynamics are real and accurate, then the Etp model must be doing what it seems to be doing. The Etp model is accurately forecasting the price of oil.



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

if knowledge and experience is "transparent diversionary tactic " then i preffer this.
shrugs.
is this all you have ?, that's it, nothing more than continuous elementary responses to knowledge and experience ?
no wonder why you're contradicting.


hilarious, what a typical diversion from answering something that will prove you completely wrong.
shrugs.


well, if there was such a prediction, then you should be able to calculate it, then tell, EXACTLY LIKE WHAT I DID. why are you not doing so?
why are you continuing to show this insignificant graph ? that line only show negative slpoe, pleas pridict points during this time frame, it's that simple, obvious pathetic one.
again, experience is what divides the idiots from the true knowledgable ones. do you have any experience as a trader or such?
of course not and the obvious answer is, it's because you know yourself how fictitious you are.
shrugs.

i made my prediction, where's yours ?


except it already has exceed the red on smaller time frames. also, what are cross rates and how are they significant to global oil trade?
please do not sidestep this with another elementary remark.


as i have already explained, it's only, simply a moving average, moving averages are always lagging, just like your exact chart already shows.
shrugs.


and reality has already shown this line to be wrong as we speak. what we call predictions, not a calculation of what already happens, this is usually referred to as deceiving.
shrugs.


except i'm not asking for a explanation of this line. i'm clearly asking for your own prediction from this model.
now quit diverting and make a prediction using your worthy [fictitious] model.. is it not that simple ?
now enough of your shenanigans, make your own prediction using this model, simple right ? yes only if one actually understands, correct ?

shrugs.



---Futilitist

 

[Write4U]

Interestng article;
http://www.environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/high-cost-fossil-fuels

 

[krash661]

shrugs.

ahhh, just as i thought, crickets..................

this speaks volumes.
shrugs.

 

[krash661]

Quit dodging!

interesting, i see a hypocrite now...
answer questions from post #525 -532..
it's that simple, pathetic one.

 

[Futilitist]

Yes, well, to give you a progress report, we are now in bold, the font size continues to increase, and we are occasionally getting text in red now...

You thought it was super important to make a side comment to Russ_Watters on the changing graphic design specs of my posts after ignoring my valid questions contained in those very posts for about the last 3 pages now. And you still have not answered my questions. WTF?!

I was right. You are faking an argument. Badly.

And you are afraid to answer me directly because you can't come up with a good response. That is because you are wrong.

If you don't have anything better, I guess we can consider the validity of the Etp model to be confirmed.

Thank you for your time.



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

Yes, well, to give you a progress report, we are now in bold, the font size continues to increase, and we are occasionally getting text in red now…..but it's still just repeating the same old stuff, except that we now have a definition of the famous PPS: "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." How the hell you make that into a finite thermodynamic system beats me, given that is is distributed throughout the environment.

P.S. I forgot to mention last night, as it was so late, that this "PPS" notion seems to flip-flop (conveniently?) between the "system" associated with a single well - as shown in one of Fute's recently copy-pasted diagrams - and some sort of generalised "system" for the entire oil production of the planet, including all oil wells in existence. It is the latter where the real absurdity arises of course, as new wells are constantly being added and old ones discontinued. It's nuts to extrapolate from the undoubted limits for extraction from a single well to the whole world's constantly changing flux of resources.

I begin to suspect that this Hills bloke may be a retired petroleum engineer who has gone mad in his old age. There is no evidence that "The Hills Group" is actually a commercial organisation, as it claims to be, or that it has any members at all, apart from the founder.

 

[Write4U]

Who Can Spot The Trend?

This is a graph of the oil price with a 365 day moving average.

Something has changed.

Yes, where the black line begins to dip was the time Obama opened previously stocked US national oil reserves to the general market. It was in response to a dangerous climb in oil prices on the general market, which threatened the entire US economy. Apparently it had the desired effect, a temporary drop in price resulting in stimulation of the economy.