is this becoming a global warming topic now ?
The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed
- Thread starter Futilitist
- Start date
- Status
No.
This thread is to discuss the Etp model.
The last half of the previous page is what is known as a forum slide. A bunch of distracting, off topic posts are made to get the thread to a new page where the first thing krash661 does is ask "is this becoming a global warming topic now ?" This is a coordinated action by multiple members of this forum to disrupt the thread. The reason they do this is because they know that the Etp model is valid, and there is no good argument against it.
Sore losers.
---Futilitist
it' can be explained by manipulating the inputs, which is why i would like to see the sheet. submit the input sheet. why are you continuing to avoid this ?
again, you already have confirmed one of the functions has collapsed.
~~~THE KRASH661
also,
now quite diverting and submit what will prove us all wrong. when we ask for evidence, you, obviously, resort to the typical 'they are just a bunch of idiots and cannot understand.' this is it, nothing more. when another individual does the calculations from the actual econ data and your formulas, i received 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.
~~~THE KRASH661
now quite diverting and submit what will prove us all wrong. when we ask for evidence, you, obviously, resort to the typical 'they are just a bunch of idiots and cannot understand.' this is it, nothing more. when another individual does the calculations from the actual econ data and your formulas, i received 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.
~~~THE KRASH661
I forgot about this (others are dated before 2013.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Canada
Other things, like a thorium car, are kinda' hard to swallow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Canada
Other things, like a thorium car, are kinda' hard to swallow.
He doesn't' realize it but the correlations are the postulates for this bullshit theory. None of it is self evident or supported by any real evidence. Since he also claims that it will result in a near extinction event for humans you've got to wonder why he feels he needs to keep this bullshit up? There's a precedent for allowing unfounded 'doomsday predictions' to remain as a appropriate topic of conversation for the science threads. It's also appropriate to classify folks who disagree with you as political nitwits. Maybe calling right wingers nitwits is a bit to much? LOL. Nah.
Last edited:
Kondratieff
Registered Member
Hello ex-chemist
1) First of all, I would like to examine the "conventional explanations" in detail:
- Shale oil boom: It is true that there has been a shale oil boom in the United States during the last years, that has allowed the country to reverse the trend (US oil production was falling before "fracking"). However, if we have a look at the rest of the oil-producing countries, we find that Oil production, while still climbing, has slowed down. In fact, the rise has been possible due to shale oil (without it, world oil production would have dropped by now). Moreover, the climb in Global Oil production has occurred due to the extraction of unconventional oil reserves (tar sands, shale, deep-water,etc) and "other liquids" (NG liquids, biofuels, etc)
Sources: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/tables/?tableNumber=6#
http://peakoilbarrel.com/eia-world-crude-condensate-production-update/
One can argue; "Well we are approaching Peak Demand, the developed world is consuming less and less oil (well, Japan where wages of japanese workers are also dropping fast, is an isolated example -exception- in this regard: Their population is falling/becoming older), we are more "efficient" in our use of oil".
I always like to answer this assertion with these examples:
Unemployment in Spain (2007 vs 2015): 8.5% vs 23.67%
Public Debt (2007 vs 2015): 383.798 M € vs 1.033.958 M €
Do you think that these graphs reflect that "efficiency" is behind the drop in oil consumption in Greece / Spain?
Oil importer countries have been hit very hard by the high oil prices/ "austerity"... so that they no longer can afford to push for the real costs of extraction... so prices have to drop even BELOW their cost of extraction (which is constantly rising). I really think that the ETP model offers a good explanation of the recent drop of oil prices and the inability of world economies to push prices higher.
Regarding the saudi reaction, I think it's logical that they want to drive the weakest competitors out by maximizing production (which in turn makes the rest of producers to pump more oil to compensate financial losses on volume... which in turn makes the oil price lower). However, you have to ask yourself why oil prices have plunged in first place... and the main reason is that consumers everywhere cannot afford to pay higher prices for it. If this price drop doesn't lead to a real economic growth in the short term (I don't see it happening anywhere, the 2nd world economy is imploding, the rest are seriously indebted, and the countries that were doing ok /because they were oil exporting countries and benefiting from high oil prices/ are now falling into recession), we really have a trouble.
2) World economies have experienced "economic growth" because they have added more and more debt. Economic growth is fueled by debt in these times, period. There are almost no real returns out there, what pays up are increasing amounts of debt. Debt that will not ever be repaid if the oil forecast is true, and will collapse under its own weight as financial bankruptcies spread and credit cannot be extended any longer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-is-drowning-in-debt-warns-Goldman-Sachs.html
Best Regards,
Last edited:
I agree. I have been making this point for 7+ years now, but calling when the collapse comes is not easy. It could be by Halloween 2015 or a few years later. If the Republicans shut the government down over tax funds being used for Planned Parenthood, it could begin in three weeks.... will collapse under its own weight as financial bankruptcies spread and credit cannot be extended any longer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-is-drowning-in-debt-warns-Goldman-Sachs.html
Best Regards,
Not funding PP is a really dumb move economically - will provide the US with 30,000 more unwanted kids annually living within mainly poor homes that can not afford them - many will be in jail before old enough to vote. Once there, each will annually cost the US tax payers more than the tuition to Ivy League schools. - Talk about your "penny wise & pound foolish" this is an extreme example.
PS the world is in a mess. There is now no shortage of "collapse trigger points." For one few follow, which also may be only a few weeks away, see: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/fort-knox-gold-an-us-government.115371/page-4#post-3329459 and the two earlier posts mentioned therein. This one strikes directly at public confidence in the financial system.
Last edited:
Can I still go trick or treating?
You couldn't resist with the bullshit BillyT. LOL. The worlds always in a mess just not how you think it is.
According to the Futilist we bend over and kiss our collective ass goodbye. BillyT to. Should that be 'too'?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You have chosen to illustrate your thesis with two of the small EU economies worst hit by the Eurozone crisis. Their condition has everything to do with unsustainable private and public debt among the PIIGS, brought about by their membership of the Euro - nothing to do with oil. And neither is representative of the state of the world economy as a whole. I would perhaps find your point more persuasive if you could show some relationship between the fall in the oil price and a recession in the US, China and Germany, i.e. large economies that are not suffering from the Eurozone fiasco, over the period in question. But these economies have not been in recession since the oil price fell, have they? Rather the reverse.
The reason why the oil price fell was increased supply in the US, as explained here : http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/economist-explains-14 . This triggered the Saudi action to defend market share, and both of these factors came together at a time when people were beginning to realise the Chinese boom was reaching a natural plateau (as its citizens grew wealthier and more demanding, and various bits of economic mismanagement started to come unstuck, e,g their property bubble). No need for pseudoscientific "thermodynamic" explanations.
Your point about debt across the world is a real worry I agree, but I cannot see why anyone would think this debt has anything to with oil as such.
I'm more with Billy T: I think our problem is that cheap oil for a long time is the worst possible thing for creating any sense of urgency in combatting climate change.
Last edited:
Yep, I'm pretty sure it's too.
I'm gonna start doing bending exercises to prepare for teh apeakoilypse (best word ever). Who's with me?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
http://www.autobytel.com/car-buying...10-high-performance-electric-vehicles-125075/
This isn't even a hybrid and I wonder if making ethanol/electric hybrids and flooding the market -I mean, to avert doomsday all the world need do is spend their military budgets for one year on green technology... for one frigin' year? lol- nah that'd be too easy. I mean an F-22 is only like 50 million (maybe 100 million) Tesla S and more... And AND! That's just one car model.
:EDIT:
Would making a graph make me look cool?
:EDIT:
Oops I did it again (fudged the math).
361 000 000 F-22 compared to 74 000 Tesla S (market price). But meh who cares.
Last edited:
Kondratieff
Registered Member
The Financial Times just posted this report about the Oil Industry:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3ba5d0a8-5e29-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html
You will agree that prices need to rise ASAP - we need to start 50-60 Oil projects every year to keep this society functioning, not only 6 or 10, as the author indicates in the article -
And from what I see, Steve Ludlum is striking back in the comments section...
"This article does not offer names but it is the majors who are underwater on their megaprojects, not just marginal wildcatters in shale territory. Oil industry is global, most output is from legacy, conventional plays that are worked over and over. The frackers are the glamour players but strictly fringe, what matters are extraction efforts of companies like Shell, Petrobras, Pemex and Total going forward.
Deep- and ultra-deepwater, arctic, syncrude- and gas conversions, pipelines and new conventional projects have been quietly postponed or shelved. The cover story is often 'sanctions', such as cancellation of Russian arctic E&P by Chevron, but these projects are uneconomical.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/17/oil-delays-idUSL5N0Z22WR20150617
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/02/brazil-oil-bids-idUKL5N0YO34X20150602
Shortages adversely affect customers rather than drillers because the latter can access lending markets unavailable to individuals. <strong>Bankrupt customers strand drillers' debts; the entire industry, not just frackers, is insolvent.</strong>
Saudia is blamed but that country is losing billion$ per day, this shortfall has ripple effect on bond markets. Saudi dollars have been supporting Treasury prices, a form of 'oil consumption QE' that is now over and done with. The chain starts @ Wall Street banks => who lend to US oil consumers => pay to refiners => buy from Saudi Aramco => dollars recycled to bond market. At present, US consumers are tapped out, which means a shrinking bid for crude.
It isn't just US customers that are straitened, look toward emerging markets and EU.
What people need to understand, oil shortages going forward will constrain customers' ability to borrow relative to drillers, meaning there are fewer customers to retire drillers' loans. This is meant by the observation that the entire oil industry is insolvent. Shortages = lower prices, which contradicts conventional 'supply vs. demand' analysis which assumes all customers are equally rich when in fact all customers are rapidly going broke. "
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3ba5d0a8-5e29-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html
You will agree that prices need to rise ASAP - we need to start 50-60 Oil projects every year to keep this society functioning, not only 6 or 10, as the author indicates in the article -
And from what I see, Steve Ludlum is striking back in the comments section...
"This article does not offer names but it is the majors who are underwater on their megaprojects, not just marginal wildcatters in shale territory. Oil industry is global, most output is from legacy, conventional plays that are worked over and over. The frackers are the glamour players but strictly fringe, what matters are extraction efforts of companies like Shell, Petrobras, Pemex and Total going forward.
Deep- and ultra-deepwater, arctic, syncrude- and gas conversions, pipelines and new conventional projects have been quietly postponed or shelved. The cover story is often 'sanctions', such as cancellation of Russian arctic E&P by Chevron, but these projects are uneconomical.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/17/oil-delays-idUSL5N0Z22WR20150617
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/02/brazil-oil-bids-idUKL5N0YO34X20150602
Shortages adversely affect customers rather than drillers because the latter can access lending markets unavailable to individuals. <strong>Bankrupt customers strand drillers' debts; the entire industry, not just frackers, is insolvent.</strong>
Saudia is blamed but that country is losing billion$ per day, this shortfall has ripple effect on bond markets. Saudi dollars have been supporting Treasury prices, a form of 'oil consumption QE' that is now over and done with. The chain starts @ Wall Street banks => who lend to US oil consumers => pay to refiners => buy from Saudi Aramco => dollars recycled to bond market. At present, US consumers are tapped out, which means a shrinking bid for crude.
It isn't just US customers that are straitened, look toward emerging markets and EU.
What people need to understand, oil shortages going forward will constrain customers' ability to borrow relative to drillers, meaning there are fewer customers to retire drillers' loans. This is meant by the observation that the entire oil industry is insolvent. Shortages = lower prices, which contradicts conventional 'supply vs. demand' analysis which assumes all customers are equally rich when in fact all customers are rapidly going broke. "
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Not at all. Prices will "need" to rise when we once more "need" the oil from these projects that are not viable at current prices. And that, obviously, is what will happen. Oil will get shorter and the price will rise….and then one by one these projects will be progressed once more. It is sheer nonsense to talk about "needing" 50-60 projects every year "to keep society functioning". You do not need any, if you have masses of cheap oil from the Middle East, as we do now, thanks largely to Saudi policy. You only need it once these supplies start to dry up, or a long term change in pumping policy is foreseen. There is certainly a challenge for oil companies to forecast the oil price over the estimated lifetime of production for each project. They cannot rely on the price for the next 2-3 years, but need a longer term view, due to the long term nature of the projects. But managing that is what oil companies do for a living.
Your concept of a debt cycle involving petrodollars from KSA etc is ingenious, but has nothing to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And where is your evidence for the statement that customers are rapidly going broke? Who? Where? And kindly do not quote notorious Eurozone casualities this time.
- Status