The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[Russ_Watters]

That's just a repeat of something you copy/pasted previously. What do you think you are accomplishing by copy/paste flooding the thread? Is this a ploy for keyword hits on google?

 

[Futilitist]

That's just a repeat of something you copy/pasted previously. What do you think you are accomplishing by copy/paste flooding the thread? Is this a ploy for keyword hits on google?

No. I am waiting for a valid response to what I posted. Do you have one?

I first posted the math stuff on page 14 after you kept complaining that I hadn't shown you enough detailed math. We are now on page 31, and you have yet to respond. Neither has exchemist. You guys are just stonewalling. The readers can browse the thread to confirm that this is true.

On the last page I posted this:

And tick tock, Russ. I am still waiting for you to answer my last post and provide a bunch of post numbers showing that my valid question has been answered. I'll bet we don't see an answer from you before the end of this page. Then I will have to bring it up again on the next page. This is ridiculous. Put up or shut up. If you can't actually put up any valid arguments against the Etp model, I once again submit that the Etp model has been confirmed. Thank you.

I was right! So, score yet another confirmed correct prediction by Futilitist.

Let's compare that with one of your amazing predictions, shall we?

"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.

Ha ha. You couldn't predict your way out of a paper bag, Russ.


---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

I believe he said he was testing the model for critique and input.

That's just a repeat of something you copy/pasted previously. What do you think you are accomplishing by copy/paste flooding the thread? Is this a ploy for keyword hits on google?

It's pathetic. Once again, as you originally pointed out, the glaring omission, from anywhere in this set of calculations, is the chemical energy content of the oil. All this maths is treating oil as a mere working fluid!

Whereas the primary object of oil extraction is so that society can release its stored chemical energy in a combustion reaction, thereby deriving useful work from it. He's leaving out the energy component that dwarfs all the others and which is the key to oil's utility - and which of course is easily capable of providing enough energy, along the way to drive the various transport and refining processes involved in its preparation for market. Unbelievably idiotic.

I said before that this is barking mad and this simply reconfirms it even more strongly.

And, by the way, none of it addresses the query in my previous post, as nowhere in this pasted extract is there anything at all explain how the PPS control volume is defined and what mass and energy flows and bulk properties are considered. The maths quoted is all about oil extraction from the well, nothing about the PPS at all. Hopeless.

But actually , now I wonder….is it possible that this whole silly model reaches the conclusion it does because it ignores the chemical energy content of the oil. That would of course lead to a conclusion that we are doomed, because it would be modelling the energy value of oil as if were water. Can Hill have been that idiotic, I wonder, or is it just Fute?

 

[Futilitist]

It's pathetic. Once again, as you originally pointed out, the glaring omission, from anywhere in this set of calculations, is the chemical energy content of the oil. All this maths is treating oil as a mere working fluid!

Whereas the primary object of oil extraction is so that society can release its stored chemical energy in a combustion reaction, thereby deriving useful work from it. He's leaving out the energy component that dwarfs all the others and which is the key to oil's utility - and which of course is easily capable of providing enough energy, along the way to drive the various transport and refining processes involved in its preparation for market. Unbelievably idiotic.

I said before that this is barking mad and this simply reconfirms it even more strongly.

And, by the way, none of it addresses the query in my previous post, as nowhere in this pasted extract is there anything at all explain how the PPS control volume is defined and what mass and energy flows and bulk properties are considered. The maths quoted is all about oil extraction from the well, nothing about the PPS at all. Hopeless.

But actually , now I wonder….is it possible that this whole silly model reaches the conclusion it does because it ignores the chemical energy content of the oil. That would of course lead to a conclusion that we are doomed, because it would be modelling the energy value of oil as if were water. Can Hill have been that idiotic, I wonder, or is it just Fute?

Your claims are pure bullshit, exchemist. My post directly addresses your query and defines precisely "how the PPS control volume is defined and what mass and energy flows and bulk properties are considered". Learn to read.

The methodology that you call pathetic, unbelievably idiotic, and barking mad is, in fact, totally valid. It has to be. This is because it actually works!

Using nothing but the second law of thermodynamics and the appropriate inputs, the Etp model has tracked the yearly average oil price from 1960-2009 with an accuracy of 96.5%. How do you account for this level of accuracy? Coincidence?

Given the fact that the Etp model produces such accurate, real world results and all you produce is opinions and denial, perhaps you are just wrong. Have you even considered such a radical possibility?



---Futilitist

 

[origin]

the Etp model has tracked the yearly average oil price from 1960-2009 with an accuracy of 96.5%.

Doesn't it work anymore? Why did you stop looking at the model 6 years ago?

 

[origin]

How do you account for this level of accuracy?

Cherry picking data and using tricks like not adjusting for inflation.

 

[Russ_Watters]

No. I am waiting for a valid response to what I posted. Do you have one?

I first posted the math stuff on page 14 after you kept complaining that I hadn't shown you enough detailed math. We are now on page 31, and you have yet to respond.

Yes, I provided a detailed/quality response; You ignored it. No, wait, that's not quite right: you taunted me in response. You're trolling your own thread. So I ask again: what is the point of copy/paste flooding when you aren't willing to discuss the contents anyway? Do you think that drowns-out objections? Should I just copy/paste my response over and over too?

 

[Futilitist]

Doesn't it work anymore? Why did you stop looking at the model 6 years ago?

Since the 2012 crossover event, the Etp model can only forecast the maximum possible oil price. The current oil price is well below the Etp maximum price curve, so the model is still providing a correct forecast.

Cherry picking data and using tricks like not adjusting for inflation.

The Etp model uses the second law of thermodynamics to accurately forecast the price of oil. It does not consider certain years when OPEC had an embargo. That kind of embargo by OPEC is no longer possible. If the model did consider those embargo years, the accuracy of the model would still be something like 95% instead of 96.5%.

Your claim about the model not adjusting for inflation is also a red herring. The Etp model calculates the oil price on a year by year basis, so adjusting for inflation is unnecessary and redundant, since inflation is already built in.



---Futilitist

 

[krash661]

No. I am waiting for a valid response to what I posted. Do you have one? [...] You guys are just stonewalling.

i do, but you continue to sidestep them for some odd reasons.

The readers can browse the thread to confirm that this is true.

how ?? by only looking at that chart with the etp lines ?
i have been asking you for data so i can confirm myself, but for the umpteenth time,you continue to sidestep them for some odd reasons. shrugs.

 

[Futilitist]

i do, but you continue to sidestep them for some odd reasons.

You are a troll. Your posts are basically gibberish. I have done the best I could to pick out any valid questions you inadvertently managed to ask amongst all the gibberish. I have answered those sufficiently. The readers can confirm this. Please go away.

Yes, I provided a detailed/quality response; You ignored it.

Really? Where? Please provide a post number in which you provided a detailed/quality response to the math I presented. Or better yet, just provide detailed/quality response now. Thanks.

Should I just copy/paste my response over and over too?

Dude. That is hardly necessary. Just copy/paste your detailed/quality response once so that I might actually know what the hell it is. Thanks.


---Futilitist

 

[krash661]

Can Hill have been that idiotic, I wonder, or is it just Fute?

maybe futi is hill ?

 

[krash661]

in fact, totally valid. It has to be. This is because it actually works!

how does anyone know ? you only keep saying it does, then shown a chart with lines, then gave a statics based half ass algorithm, with no input/out nor the sheet for that matter.
other than that there's no other such anything shrugs.

How do you account for this level of accuracy? Coincidence?

by the inputs being manipulated from actual data, then drawing a line on paper saying 'see it works'..
enough said.
shrugs.

 

[krash661]

Since the 2012 crossover event, the Etp model can only forecast the maximum possible oil price. The current oil price below the Etp maximum price curve, so the model is still providing a correct forecast.

ahh there it is, finally admitted, it's a failed algorithm...
uhhh no it does not work... you just clearly stated it does not, probably without realizing it.
well now it appears it's obvious why you were sidestepping my questions.

calculates the oil price on a year by year basis, so adjusting for inflation is unnecessary and redundant, since inflation already built in.

ahh so in other words it's a lagging moving average, and nothing more.

 

[krash661]

Really? Where? Please provide a post number in which you provided a detailed/quality response to the math I presented. Or better yet, just provide one now.

i seen it, but i'm also not attempting to sidestep or deceive something from that will 100% show me to be wrong.

 

[Futilitist]

i seen it, but i'm also not attempting to sidestep or deceive something from that will 100% show me to be wrong.

It seems like you are agreeing that Russ_Watters is 100% wrong.

Wait a second, are you saying that you have actually seen Russ_Watters' non-existent detailed/quality response? I can't find it. If it's not too much trouble, would you please post a missing link?



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

Really? Where? Please provide a post number in which you provided a detailed/quality response to the math I presented.

Posts #332 and #333.

Dude. That is hardly necessary. Just copy/paste your detailed/quality response once so that I might actually know what the hell it is.

If it isn't necessary to copy/paste the same thing over and over again, why do you do it?

The Etp model calculates the oil price on a year by year basis, so adjusting for inflation is unnecessary and redundant, since inflation is already built in.

As usual, I'm not sure if you are trolling or stupid here, but what people are telling you (over and over and over again) is that the effects of inflation must be removed, from the model, not "built in".

Krash, FYI, I don't know if you'd seen it before, but this issue of inflation adjustment has been fully addressed before. Fute posted a quote from Hill acknowledging that if the effects of inflation are removed from the graph that it is an extremely poor fit -- so he left them in. So there was no logical reason besides "it fit better" to keep inflation in the graph. But anyone who isn't a complete idiot must recognize that if the inflation-removed graph is a poor fit and the inflation-included graph is a good fit, then all of the fit in the inflation-included graph is a fit of inflation itself. So the "model" is, in fact, a terrible fit.

 

[krash661]

I can't find it.

wow, now you have resorted to a deceiving manipulating attempt.
i'm also 1000% sure that anyone else who is reading did see it also, it is clear as day.
shrugs.

 

[krash661]

You are a troll. Your posts are basically gibberish. I have done the best I could to pick out any valid questions you inadvertently managed to ask amongst all the gibberish. I have answered those sufficiently. The readers can confirm this. Please go away.

for the umpteenth time, i would like to see the inputs/output sheet.
i did my own using the etp formula and real, actual data as inputs. the funny thing is, i did not receive the same of your lines on the output, odd.
so i'm now asking for the work which you keep dodging for some odd reasons.
but all in all, after i calculated this, and your comment of this etp failing on it's function, and confirming this along with confirming it's nothing but a moving average algorithm, there's no point.
refer to post #633
shrugs.

 

[krash661]

Krash, FYI, I don't know if you'd seen it before, but this issue of inflation adjustment has been fully addressed before. Fute posted a quote from Hill acknowledging that if the effects of inflation are removed from the graph that it is an extremely poor fit -- so he left them in. So there was no logical reason besides "it fit better" to keep inflation in the graph. But anyone who isn't a complete idiot must recognize that if the inflation-removed graph is a poor fit and the inflation-included graph is a good fit, then all of the fit in the inflation-included graph is a fit of inflation itself. So the "model" is, in fact, a terrible fit.

it's irrelevant, it's an lagging indicator, year over year was the nail in the coffin. it takes previous data points and manipulates them. but needs an x amount of 'now' data as it's calculating. this causes a lagging result. in other words it won't be accurate until it already happens, which is exactly why he's sidestepping anything pertaining to this and only saying it worked in the past.
i've used such programs before, i always lose money when they collapse. they always collapse within a relatively quick time. more than usual volatility in a single moment, the quicker they fail.

and yes, i agree.

 

[Futilitist]

It seems like you are agreeing that Russ_Watters is 100% wrong.

and yes, i agree.

Thank you for confirming that Russ_Watters is 100% wrong.

Posts #332 and #333.

I looked over these 2 posts. There is nothing in them rises to the level of a detailed/quality response to my post explaining the methodology used to create the Etp model. No wonder you kept stonewalling for so long.

For example:

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.

Red herring. This is just a repeat of what exchemist claims. The Etp model uses the second law of thermodynamics to calculate the total energy cost to produce the world's oil. It is not necessary to factor in the energy content of a barrel of oil except to know how much energy is available to pay the production costs.

And:

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.

Argument from ignorance. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong. I know someone who took BWHill's formula and, using matlab plus some simplified inputs, produced a curve that basically matches the Etp function. So, the Etp model works even if you don't understand the math.

And:

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?

Because the Etp model provides much more accurate results.

EROEI is estimated using various methods, producing various estimates. But by considering entropy, the Etp model not only accurately forecasts the price of oil, it also provides a more accurate reading of EROEI. For example, prior to the Etp model, the EROEI for the end user was basically unknown. The Etp model shows that the EROEI for the end users of oil reached 2:1 in 2012.

So that pretty much covers all the points in post #332 that nearly rise to the level of being detailed/quality responses. There were no detailed/quality responses to respond to in post #333.

If it isn't necessary to copy/paste the same thing over and over again, why do you do it?

When you refuse to answer, it is the only way to get your attention. It worked.

As usual, I'm not sure if you are trolling or stupid here, but what people are telling you (over and over and over again) is that the effects of inflation must be removed, from the model, not "built in".

I realize they are telling me that over and over. The trouble is, they are not correct.

Krash, FYI, I don't know if you'd seen it before, but this issue of inflation adjustment has been fully addressed before. Fute posted a quote from Hill acknowledging that if the effects of inflation are removed from the graph that it is an extremely poor fit -- so he left them in. So there was no logical reason besides "it fit better" to keep inflation in the graph. But anyone who isn't a complete idiot must recognize that if the inflation-removed graph is a poor fit and the inflation-included graph is a good fit, then all of the fit in the inflation-included graph is a fit of inflation itself. So the "model" is, in fact, a terrible fit.

The model produces a very accurate fit to the actual yearly average oil prices. Your inflation complaint has been sufficiently addressed.

The bottom line is that the Etp model works. It is 96.5% accurate from 1960-2009 (given the OPEC caveats already mentioned) and it continues to accurately forecast that the price of oil will not rise above the Etp maximum price curve. Your forecasts are pretty laughable by comparison.



---Futilitist