The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. That is incorrect. It would make no sense because no one here is actually qualified to critique the validity of the Etp model. I said I was using the Etp model to test the validity of this science forum.
---Futilitist:cool:

Serious question:After all the science you quoted, what happens when yuo put a gallon of refined oil in your car, is it not heated to the engine temperature and subsequent combustion? Does the efficiency of the engine have anything to do with the actual thermodynamic
release od energy. Some cars get 10 m/pg, others get 30 m/pg. Important or insignificant?

Seems to me that some consumers actually pay more for the same amount of work than others.
Can the price of gasoline at the pump be calculated from your equations?
 
Last edited:
Thank you for confirming that Russ_Watters is 100% wrong.
in my opinion, this deserves a ban. because now you are resorting to 'a slap in your face ' deceiving tactic. which is only a result from someone who has backed themselves into a corner.
:) shrugs.

quit being butt hurt from someone exposing your fictitious pathetic shenanigans. that's exactly why you continued to sidestep my questions, with your deceiving, diverting remarks, which you're still continuing to do.

so in turn, i say HA HA TAKE THAT. :)
you know you have been and your etp has been exposed.

on a last note, i'll refer anyone to post #639
 
Serious question:After all the science you quoted, what happens when yuo put a gallon of refined oil in your car, is it not heated to the engine temperature and subsequent combustion? Does the efficiency of the engine have anything to do with the actual thermodynamic
release od energy. Some cars get 10 m/pg, others get 30 m/pg. Important or insignificant?
Not really. The Etp model uses the average efficiency of internal combustion engines to calculate the maximum oil price curve.

Seems to me that some consumers actually pay more for the same amount of work than others.
Can the price of gasoline at the pump be calculated from your equations?
No. The Etp model forecasts the price of a barrel of oil.



---Futilitist:cool:
 
in my opinion, this deserves a ban. because now you are resorting to 'a slap in your face ' deceiving tactic. which is only a result from someone who has backed themselves into a corner.
:) shrugs.
Oops, my mistake. In my effort to answer so many rapid fire questions from multiple people, I misunderstood your comment.

Sorry about the mix up, but like I said, your posts are very hard to make any sense of. Although I do try my best to pick out the potentially serious comments from amongst your usual gibberish, you really should be banned for being a persistent troll. I can provide a bunch post numbers to prove that, if anyone is interested.



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
I believe that the exchange of arguments stopped some time ago, and now we're entering in the phase of name-calling and trolling. Futilitist is trying to convince you of the validity of a model - It seems that after the derailment of the thread, the mission seems impossible for him. As you will remember, I only discovered the ETP model after looking for plausible explanations of the OIL PRICE PLUNGE of 2014-2015. I would tell you that I first believed the narrative of an oil glut- and I said to myself: "Fantastic, a new era of prosperity is ahead of us. My country -Spain- will slowly return to a new normalcy, and I could come back from this foreign country where I'm working right now". However, I have yet to see any "prosperity" - wages are still decreasing, tax collection by the State is not picking up, unemployment dropped something - because shitty jobs were created...

Luckily, I was able to find a REALISTIC explanation of what was going on with the petroleum business and the economy...and MOREOVER, the guy who I was reading PRECISELY FORECAST IN 2012 that oil prices will have collapsed at the end of 2014, and will never recover. For example, this post offers the BEST macro-economic explanation (taking into account the energy inputs) that I've ever read about the issue: http://www.economic-undertow.com/2015/01/07/black-swan-dive/

*This Triangle of Doom (named by the author) is from 2014:

Triangle-of-Doom-080113.png


After this short introduction about myself, I would try to get back to the original purpose of this thread. And I would like to achieve it sharing one of the latest comments of the author of the ETP model:

A seductive argument, but unfortunately incorrect. Money (currency) is created out of thin air every minute of every day. Not a singular BTU has ever been created from the magic of fractional reserve banking; it has just created the promise of a BTU that may, or may not be there.
Rapier, like most legitimate investigators into petroleum, have fallen for the dollar poxy fallacy. It is not the price of oil that drives its production, it is the dollar price versus value to the economy relationship that drives its production. A dollar of production cost must be offset by a dollar of created economic activity, or petroleum would not be produced. The money would not exist to produce it.
When a unit of petroleum could power $100 of economic activity it was worth $100. That fell to $75, and it became worth $75. It has since fallen to about $68, and is now selling for $47. The price of oil is a moving target, and that target is moving at the rate of its depletion. That is, depletion in terms of its ability to power the economy, not the quantity of it buried in the ground.

We have explicitly defined the price of oil versus its value to the economy relationship with the Etp Model. It is an energy Model, but dollars can be used as a proxy for BTU; if one realizes that they are just a proxy.

I think we should move the debate to a new point: Is the current "oil glut" really caused by a supply excess of petroleum, or is it caused by an "under-demand"?

If you think that we are witnessing a supply excess, why...

Isn't it driving a new economic boom ( Finland: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b41b601a-5d03-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html , Canada: http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-in-recession-2015-9 Australia: http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/wh...vestment-points-to-a-recession-cw/2015/08/28/ Brazil:http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/28/news/economy/brazil-recession/ France ...68 consecutive months with rising unemployment, China bursting, Russia dropping its GDP a 4.5% annually, Latin-America's growth grinding to a halt, ...is any country out there besides the UK/US/Switzerland -the core of the system - that is doing ok?)?
Interest rates are kept unchanged everywhere and at their lowest record ever...and the FED does not even dare to rise them?
 
Last edited:
I believe that the exchange of arguments stopped some time ago, and now we're entering in the phase of name-calling and trolling. Futilitist is trying to convince you of the validity of a model - It seems that after the derailment of the thread, the mission seems impossible for him. As you will remember, I only discovered the ETP model after looking for plausible explanations of the OIL PRICE PLUNGE of 2014-2015. I would tell you that I first believed the narrative of an oil glut- and I said to myself: "Fantastic, a new era of prosperity is ahead of us. My country -Spain- will slowly return to a new normalcy, and I could come back from this foreign country where I'm working right now". However, I have yet to see any "prosperity" - wages are still decreasing, tax collection by the State is not picking up, unemployment dropped something - because shitty jobs were created...

Luckily, I was able to find a REALISTIC explanation of what was going on with the petroleum business and the economy...and MOREOVER, the guy who I was reading PRECISELY FORECAST IN 2012 that oil prices will have collapsed at the end of 2014, and will never recover. For example, this post offers the BEST macro-economic explanation (taking into account the energy inputs) that I've ever read about the issue: http://www.economic-undertow.com/2015/01/07/black-swan-dive/

*This Triangle of Doom (named by the author) is from 2014:

Triangle-of-Doom-080113.png


After this short introduction about myself, I would try to get back to the original purpose of this thread. And I would like to achieve it sharing one of the latest comments of the author of the ETP model:

A seductive argument, but unfortunately incorrect. Money (currency) is created out of thin air every minute of every day. Not a singular BTU has ever been created from the magic of fractional reserve banking; it has just created the promise of a BTU that may, or may not be there.
Rapier, like most legitimate investigators into petroleum, have fallen for the dollar poxy fallacy. It is not the price of oil that drives its production, it is the dollar price versus value to the economy relationship that drives its production. A dollar of production cost must be offset by a dollar of created economic activity, or petroleum would not be produced. The money would not exist to produce it.
When a unit of petroleum could power $100 of economic activity it was worth $100. That fell to $75, and it became worth $75. It has since fallen to about $68, and is now selling for $47. The price of oil is a moving target, and that target is moving at the rate of its depletion. That is, depletion in terms of its ability to power the economy, not the quantity of it buried in the ground.

We have explicitly defined the price of oil versus its value to the economy relationship with the Etp Model. It is an energy Model, but dollars can be used as a proxy for BTU; if one realizes that they are just a proxy.

I think we should move the debate to a new point: Is the current "oil glut" really caused by a supply excess of petroleum, or is it caused by an "under-demand"?

If you think that we are witnessing a supply excess, why...

Isn't it driving a new economic boom ( Finland: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b41b601a-5d03-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html , Canada: http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-in-recession-2015-9 Australia: http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/wh...vestment-points-to-a-recession-cw/2015/08/28/ Brazil:http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/28/news/economy/brazil-recession/ France ...68 consecutive months with rising unemployment, China bursting, Russia dropping its GDP a 4.5% annually, Latin-America's growth grinding to a halt, ...is any country out there besides the UK/US/Switzerland -the core of the system - that is doing ok?)?
Interest rates are kept unchanged everywhere and at their lowest record ever...and the FED does not even dare to rise them?

Well most people would say the economy is not solely driven by oil, oddly enough. It is driven by a host of factors, political, psychological, technological and so forth. Energy is just one resource among many - and indeed, oil is only part of the total energy resource.

I have two questions for you:

1) Why does the obvious, conventional explanation of the oil price drop not satisfy you? You know, the shale oil boom, the Saudi reaction, the China slowdown as their population becomes richer and various blunders come to light, etc. That seems to explain it satisfactorily to almost everybody on the planet, including absolutely everyone working in the oil industry, where one would expect the best experts to be. Do you think these people are all wrong? Or that they are all colluding in some deception or other, for some obscure reason?

2) As for the notion that the amount of economic activity oil can "power" is falling, in line with the fall in the oil price, how do you explain that the world's economy, far from shrinking to <50% of what it was in early 2014, has in fact grown since then?
 
Last edited:
Well most people would say the economy is not solely driven by oil, oddly enough. It is driven by a host of factors, political, psychological, technological and so forth.
Most people aren't necessarily right.

I have two questions for you:

1) Why does the obvious, conventional explanation of the oil price drop not satisfy you?
Your explanation may be seen by you as the conventional one, but that does not make it correct. Your explanation is also not obvious. That would imply that your explanation is self evident, which it certainly is not. That is begging the question.

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

To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within a premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent.[1]

You know, the shale oil boom, the Saudi reaction, the China slowdown as their population becomes richer, etc. That seems to explain it satisfactorily to almost everybody on the planet...
Wow. Almost everyone on the planet disagrees with me (and Kondratieff). I (we) should just give up.

You are making the argumentum ad populum.

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

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy.

...including absolutely everyone working in the oil industry, where one would expect the best experts to be. Do you think these people are all wrong? Or that they are all colluding in some deception or other, for some obscure reason?
Really? Absolutely everyone working in the oil industry agrees with you? And the only two possibilities available to me to explain this situation are that 100% of the people in the oil industry are wrong or are conspiring to lie about it?

The rhetorical trick you are attempting is what is known as a false dichotomy or false dilemma.

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

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

2) As for the notion that the amount of economic activity oil can "power" is falling, in line with the fall in the oil price, how do you explain that the world's economy, far from shrinking to <50% of what it was in early 2014, has in fact grown since then?
No one ever suggested that the economy would shrink in a one to one relationship to the falling oil price. The world economy is barely growing. Growth is extremely slow relative to historical norms. And the central banks of the world have cut interest rates to stimulate the economy. If the economy were doing so well, why doesn't the Fed raise interest rates?



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
Most people aren't necessarily right.
does this pertain to your own words and thoughts ?
To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within a premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent.[1]
is this not hypocritical on your part ?

where is the sheet, can we observe the inputs ?
 
does this pertain to your own words and thoughts ?
Yes. Just like everybody else, I am not necessarily right. But in this case I am right.

is this not hypocritical on your part ?
I haven't begged any questions, so no, I am not being hypocritical. But you are trying to imply that I am. You are attempting to construct a red herring, ad hominem, logical fallacy known as Tu quoque.

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

Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[2] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.

where is the sheet, can we observe the inputs ?
Please stop asking this. I have explained to you before that the Etp model is not a some kind of Wall Street investment tool. It does not have a "sheet", whatever the hell that is.



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
Yes. Just like everybody else, I am not necessarily right. But in this case I am right.
huh uh, except reality has already shown you to be wrong as you type here.
But you are trying to imply that I am. You are attempting to construct a red herring, ad hominem, logical fallacy known as Tu quoque.
actually no, i'm clearly stating you are, no implying at all.
i can link your hypocritical, contradiction nonsense, that you have been obviously showing.

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

Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[2] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.
i don't care for wikki links. not that this shown anything, it's just your own thought of diversions. you know you have been debunked and now you're simply playing a pathetic diverting game. nothing more.
:) shrugs.




Please stop asking this. I have explained to you before that the Etp model is not a some kind of Wall Street investment tool. It does not have a "sheet", whatever the hell that is.
why, would this sheet not prove us wrong ?
also, i'm not saying anything about this of wall street at this moment, i'm simply asking for the inputs, this has nothing to do with my wall street talk. now quite diverting and submit what will prove us all wrong.
why are you avoiding this? the answer is in the post above where you confirmed my notions about this etp, so now you're making obvious that you're simply squandering and diverting.
but all in all, please continue, it's comical.

It does not have a "sheet", whatever the hell that is.
hilarious... how was this line plotted to begin with then ?
OMFG massively hilarious.
~~~THE KRASH661:cool:
 
o_O shrugs.

~~~THE KRASH661:cool: said:
hilarious... how was this line plotted to begin with then ?
OMFG massively hilarious.
~~~THE KRASH661:cool:
This has been fully covered. Read the thread to find the answer you seek.


---Futilitist:cool:
 
o_O shrugs.


This has been fully covered. Read the thread to find the answer you seek.


---Futilitist:cool:
there are no answer to my question of, can we see the inputs and the sheet the inputs were plotted on.why are you avoiding this?
SO NOW WHAT ? continue to dodge and divert ?
asking for the inputs of your etp is trollish ?
~~~ THE KRASH661:cool:
 
Hello again Kondrateiff.

I believe that the exchange of arguments stopped some time ago, and now we're entering in the phase of name-calling and trolling. Futilitist is trying to convince you of the validity of a model - It seems that after the derailment of the thread, the mission seems impossible for him.
As I explained before, I am not trying to convince these clowns. I am trying to convince the readers. I think it is going pretty well in that regard.

As I patiently explain away all of the lame objections to the validity of the Etp model, the folks here are forced to play games of diversion and distraction because they know they are not winning the debate. I think this undermines their general credibility.

Some simple arguments against the Etp model were offered up. I answered those arguments definitively and have received no valid counter arguments. No additional valid arguments against the Etp model have been offered. Just games.

Thanks for posting the Triangle of Doom.
Triangle-of-Doom-080113.png

It reminds me of the Futilitist Collapse Challenge.
5045281.png

Which reminds me of the Etp model.


The basic idea of limits to growth is seen as something to make fun of on this forum. The notion that there might be specific thermodynamic limits to economic growth because of entropy in the oil production system is the most ridiculous concept they have ever heard of. They ask, "How could anyone ever conceive of something so ludicrous as the Etp model?"

It is interesting to note how the 3 observers above all independently came to the same basic conclusion that is seen on this forum as so ridiculous it can't even be comprehended. How likely is it that 3 independent observers would all independently invent the same "crazy" idea? It looks more like consilience to me.

Doesn't it make sense to think that the hard core peak oil deniers that populate this forum are just wrong, since they evidently can't back up any of their claims?


I will reprint the BWHill quote for you to remove the stupid problems that are caused by using dollar signs. I wish someone would fix this long standing software glitch.

"A seductive argument, but unfortunately incorrect. Money (currency) is created out of thin air every minute of every day. Not a singular BTU has ever been created from the magic of fractional reserve banking; it has just created the promise of a BTU that may, or may not be there.

Rapier, like most legitimate investigators into petroleum, has fallen for the dollar proxy fallacy. It is not the price of oil that drives its production, it is the dollar price versus value to the economy relationship that drives its production. A dollar of production cost must be offset by a dollar of created economic activity, or petroleum would not be produced. The money would not exist to produce it.


When a unit of petroleum could power 100 dollars of economic activity it was worth 100 dollars. That fell to 75 dollars, and it became worth 75 dollars. It has since fallen to about 68 dollars, and is now selling for 47 dollars. The price of oil is a moving target, and that target is moving at the rate of its depletion. That is, depletion in terms of its ability to power the economy, not the quantity of it buried in the ground.

We have explicitly defined the price of oil versus its value to the economy relationship with the Etp Model. It is an energy Model, but dollars can be used as a proxy for BTU; if one realizes that they are just a proxy."
~BWHill

I think we should move the debate to a new point: Is the current "oil glut" really caused by a supply excess of petroleum, or is it caused by an "under-demand"?

If you think that we are witnessing a supply excess, why...

Isn't it driving a new economic boom ( Finland: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b41b601a-5d03-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html , Canada: http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-in-recession-2015-9 Australia: http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/wh...vestment-points-to-a-recession-cw/2015/08/28/ Brazil:http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/28/news/economy/brazil-recession/ France ...68 consecutive months with rising unemployment, China bursting, Russia dropping its GDP a 4.5% annually, Latin-America's growth grinding to a halt, ...is any country out there besides the UK/US/Switzerland -the core of the system - that is doing ok?)?
Interest rates are kept unchanged everywhere and at their lowest record ever...and the FED does not even dare to rise them?
I think you raise some interesting questions about the current state of the economy. But you will probably just get counter arguments that paint everything in a much rosier light. The results will likely be inconclusive.



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
Hello again Kondrateiff.


As I explained before, I am not trying to convince these clowns. I am trying to convince the readers. I think it is going pretty well in that regard.

As I patiently explain away all of the lame objections to the validity of the Etp model, the folks here are forced to play games of diversion and distraction because they know they are not winning the debate. I think this undermines their general credibility.

Some simple arguments against the Etp model were offered up. I answered those arguments definitively and have received no valid counter arguments. No additional valid arguments against the Etp model have been offered. Just games.
there are no answer to my question of, can we see the inputs and the sheet the inputs were plotted on.why are you avoiding this? the answer of why you're avoiding is in the post above where you confirmed my notions about this etp. you clearly stated that one of the functions of this model already has collapsed. so now you're making it obvious that you're simply squandering and diverting.
SO NOW WHAT ? continue to dodge and divert ?
asking for the inputs of your etp is trollish ?
~~~ THE KRASH661:cool:
 
The basic idea of limits to growth is seen as something to make fun of on this forum. The notion that there might be specific thermodynamic limits to economic growth because of entropy in the oil production system is the most ridiculous concept they have ever heard of. They ask, "How could anyone ever conceive of something so ludicrous as the Etp model?"

It is interesting to note how the 3 observers above all independently came to the same basic conclusion that is seen on this forum as so ridiculous it can't even be comprehended. How likely is it that 3 independent observers would all independently invent the same "crazy" idea? It looks more like consilience to me.

Doesn't it make sense to think that the hard core peak oil deniers that populate this forum are just wrong, since they evidently can't back up any of their claims?
all you have done was shown some lines on a graph, then say 'see it works', then we ask for evidence, then you resort to the typical ' they are just a bunch of idiots and cannot understand. ' this is it, nothing more.
what you cannot grasp is, this etp is inaccurate because there are other elements involved with the price of oil other than entropy .
your whole notion is only this. you are only claiming it's correct and accurate. when another individual does the calculations from the actual econ data and your formula, i recieved a different result that what you are only claiming of. something does not make sense here. so i'm lead to believe the inputs you claim of are fictitious, so in turn show the inputs and the sheet. it's simple.

it appears you do not realize that you're being 100% hypocritical and contradicting, usually these are red flags and typical.
:) shrugs.

~~~ THE KRASH661:cool:
 
I don't post often here as in the long run (IE when huge reserves of oil with production cost less than 15 dollars or so are exhausted.) the etp model may be basically correct; but to currently claim it is confirmed, is nonsense. It was "confirmed" according to Futilitist when price of oil quickly doubled; and now is "confirmed" by price falling to half.

The fundamental flaw of the model is that it pretends that the will and ability of the Saudis to modulate the price of oil does not exist. When they (and some others in the mid-east, no longer can do that), then the etp model MAY be validated, assuming oil is still a uniquely important energy source - has not been for example replaced by sugar cane alcohol grown on just the world's more than adequate, but now abandoned, pasture land. etc. Global Warming will either force that (if most don't die) as that alcohol, unlike fossil fuels, is slightly net "CO2 negative" OR most will die by one of the several mechanisms that produce that result.
 
Last edited:
I don't post often here as in the long run (IE when huge reserves of oil with production cost less than 15 dollars or so are exhausted.) the etp model may be basically correct; but to currently claim it is confirmed, is nonsense. It was "confirmed" according to Futilitist when price of oil quickly doubled; and now is "confirmed" by price falling to half.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Billy T.

I'm glad you can see that the Etp model is based on sound physics.

As far as the "confirmed" part, you are arguing with a straw man. Read my OP.

The fundamental flaw of the model is that it pretends that the will and ability of the Saudis to modulate the price of oil does not exist. When they (and some others in the mid-east, no longer can do that), then the etp model MAY be validated,...
The laws of physics must supersede the Saudis.

The Saudis, or anything else, can only temporarily raise the price of oil above the Etp maximum price curve. That is because the high price would only cause demand destruction since there is not enough net energy in the oil to support a high price.

...assuming oil is still a uniquely important energy source -- has not been for example replaced by sugar cane alcohol grown on just the world's more than adequate, but now abandoned, pasture land. etc. Global Warming will either force that (if most don't die) as that alcohol, unlike fossil fuels, is slightly net "CO2 negative..."
The timeline forecast by the Etp model would not allow for the changes you propose.

OR most will die by one of the several mechanisms that produce that result.
That sounds about right.


Hey Billy T, since you have a PhD in physics, will you please take a look at this post:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...rically-confirmed.152487/page-31#post-3329420

The post contains a diagram and description of the boundary conditions for the model, and the mathematical derivation of equation #7 from the entropy rate balance equation for control volumes, a second law statement.

Do you understand the methodology used to generate the Etp function?

Is it valid?



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
... I'm glad you can see that the Etp model is based on sound physics. ... The laws of physics must supersede the Saudis.
No. The laws of physic have nothing to say about the price of anything, including oil; and Saudis do have a lot of control over the price of oil when that is twice or more than their production cost, as now.
... The timeline forecast by the Etp model would not allow for the changes you propose.
That is another serious defect in the etp model - fails to recognized production and demand systems change. For example the etp model of whale oil price, if once valid, is not valid anymore as we now have electric lights.
 
No. The laws of physic have nothing to say about the price of anything, including oil; and Saudis do have a lot of control over the price of oil when that is twice or more than their production cost, as now. That is another serious defect in the etp model - fails to recognized production and demand systems change. For example the etp model of whale oil price, if once valid, is not valid anymore as we now have electric lights.
That is silly, Billy T. We stopped using whale oil when we started using crude oil. This transition resulted in a net energy gain for civilization. The situation is very different this time since we don't have a better energy source readily available to make a transition to.

As long as you are here, please take a look at this:

Boundary conditions_zpse1brybjr.jpg

"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

Values for $$E_{TP}$$ are derived from the solution of the Second Law statement, the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes:

$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}
=\sum_j\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}
+\sum_i\dot{m}_{i}s_{i}
-\sum_e\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}
+\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$


"Where $$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}$$ represents the time rate of change of entropy within the control volume. The terms $$\dot{m}_{i}s_{i}$$ and $$\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}$$ account, respectively, for rates of entropy transfer into and out of the control volume accompanying mass flow. The term $$\dot{Q}_{j}$$ represents the time rate of heat transfer at the location on the boundary where the instantaneous temperature is $$T_{j}$$. The ratio $$\frac{\dot{Q}_j}{T_j}$$ accounts for the accompanying rate of entropy transfer. The term $$\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$ denotes the time rate of entropy production due to irreversibilities within the control volume."
~(Taken from Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics by Moran and Shapiro)

Because there is only one temperature boundary (at the exit point of the reservoir) and no crude oil enters the reservoir from the environment, the equation reduces to:

$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}=\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}-\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}+\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$

giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$

For this application, crude oil and water can be treated as incompressible substances. Their specific entropies are only affected by a temperature change.

For specific heats: $$c_{v}=c_{p}=c$$, and $$s_{2}-s_{1}=c*\ln{\frac{T_{2}}{T_{1}}}$$ The reservoir temperature is constant, therefore the entropy of the reservoir must decrease at the same rate that the entropy is transferred from the reservoir by mass flow. Thus, the heat leaving the reservoir is negative in sign and the equation becomes:

$$\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}=\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$

giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$

The rate of entropy production in the petroleum production system is equal to the rate of heat extracted from the reservoir divided by the reservoir temperature.

The rate of irreversibility production in the petroleum production system therefore becomes:

$$\dot{I_{cv}}=T_{O}*\dot\sigma_{cv}$$

giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec}$$

Where $$T_{O}$$ equals the standard reference temperature of the environment, 537 °R (77° F).

Therefore:

$$E_{TP}=\int_{t1}^{t2}\dot{I_{cv}}dt$$

giving: $$BTU$$

Because the mass removed from the reservoir is limited to crude oil and water, the increase in $$E_{TP}$$ per billion barrels (Gb) of crude extracted as $$ds=c\frac{dT}{T}$$ is:

(Equation#7)

$$\frac{E_{TP/lb}}{Gb}
=\begin{bmatrix}\frac{(m_{c}*c_{c}
+m_{w}*c_{w})(T_{R}-T_{O})}{m_{c}} \end{bmatrix}/Gb$$


giving: BTU/lb/Gb

$$m_{c}$$ = mass of crude, lbs.
$$c_{c}$$ = specific heat of crude, BTU/lb °R
$$m_{w}$$ = mass of water, lbs.
$$c_{w}$$ = specific heat of water, BTU/lb °R
$$T_{R}$$ = reserve temperature, °R
$$T_{O}$$ = standard reference temperature of the environment, 537 °R
$$s_{i}$$ = specific entropy into the control volume
$$s_{e}$$ = specific entropy exiting the control volume

BTU/gal/Gb for 35.7° API crude = BTU/lb/Gb * 7.0479 lb/gal

Evaluation of $$E_{TP}$$ from Equation# 7 requires the determination of three variables: mass of the crude ($$m_{c}$$) mass of the water ($$m_{w}$$), and the temperature of the reservoir ($$T_{R}$$). These must be determined at time (t).

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.

-------------------------------

What do you think of the methodology used to create the Etp model?

How do you explain the fact that the Etp model forecast the price of oil from 1960-2009 with an accuracy of 96.5%?



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top