The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[Write4U]

I don't have to. It is my personal opinion that you are being insincere. I am entitled to my opinion. I am just being honest.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion. As am I.

Your oil spill obsession doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see how oil spills have anything to do with the validity of the Etp model. And I discussed it with you before anyway. ---Futilitist

We ARE talking about the price of oil, no? Does your chart include the cost of clean-up and reimbursement to the fisheries? Did those expenses just disappear? There was a recalculation of the price of a gallon of gas (upward), in spite of your Etp model, which only addresses the "ideal" extraction and processing cost, and completely disregards the impact of oil spills.

A massive response ensued to protect beaches, wetlands and estuaries from the spreading oil utilizing skimmer ships, floating booms, controlled burns and 1.84 million US gallons (7,000 m3) of Corexit oil dispersant.[14] Due to the months-long spill, along with adverse effects from the response and cleanup activities, extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats and fishing and tourism industries was reported.[15][16] In Louisiana, 4.6 million pounds of oily material was removed from the beaches in 2013, over double the amount collected in 2012. Oil cleanup crews worked four days a week on 55 miles of Louisiana shoreline throughout 2013.[17] Oil continued to be found as far from the Macondo site as the waters off the Florida Panhandle and Tampa Bay, where scientists said the oil and dispersant mixture is embedded in the sand.[18] In 2013 it was reported that dolphins and other marine life continued to die in record numbers with infant dolphins dying at six times the normal rate.[19] One study released in 2014 reported that tuna and amberjack that were exposed to oil from the spill developed deformities of the heart and other organs that would be expected to be fatal or at least life-shortening and another study found that cardiotoxicity might have been widespread in animal life exposed to the spill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

Does your Etp model address these secondary "annoying details"? If not, how can your model be considered to be accurate with any degree of confidence?

.

 

[brucep]

La la la. Answer this


The oil price is an economic game... The Etp model is for the ignorant.

Pretty funny bullshit when you read the nonsense which supposedly has something to do with the price of oil. It's an economic game as long as the availability of the hydrocarbons is sufficient. It's the oil industries baby. The source of the oil industries bottom line. They know pretty much everything associated with the subject. Thinking they don't is juvenile. I have first hand experience working in the industry for 40 years. If we were going to run out of oil in 5 years it would be a complete obliteration of the bottom line. So what can we surmise from that? Futilist is a doomsday crank for thinking otherwise.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Well, I've never worked for the oil industry, hence, none of my information is first hand. But as soon as, Futilitist, started neurotically spouting that the second law of thermodynamics somehow makes everything he says truth, my annoyance and bewilderment increased. I saw in the article and site more of the variables that make his arguments fallacious.

I'm glad there's competition in the oil industry, or else we could get some money loving prick like this person: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34320413

This thread is kinda' starting to bore me, however. Futilitist, is predictable, and I have scientifically shown it with an easily reproducible experiment: talk to a brick wall.

 

[brucep]

La la la. Answer this:



http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Saudi-Oil-Price-War-Is-Backfiring.html


The oil price is an economic game... The Etp model is for the ignorant.

THOSE BITCHES OF DOOM!

I want my mommy.



---Beer w/Straw

wow those ladies don't suggest that geometry.

 

[Futilitist]

You certainly are entitled to your opinion. As am I.

We ARE talking about the price of oil, no? Does your chart include the cost of clean-up and reimbursement to the fisheries? Did those expenses just disappear? There was a recalculation of the price of a gallon of gas (upward), in spite of your Etp model, which only addresses the "ideal" extraction and processing cost, and completely disregards the impact of oil spills.

Does your Etp model address these secondary "annoying details"? If not, how can your model be considered to be accurate with any degree of confidence?

The Etp model is 96.5% accurate at tracking the yearly average oil price (1960-2009). The oil price is still tracking with the Etp forecast, i.e. the oil price is tracking below the Etp maximum oil price curve.

The Etp model is so accurate because it accounts for how entropy increases over the life cycle of the oil production process.

Oil spills happen. The oil price might increase temporarily. But it will eventually fall back in line with where it should be to maintain the thermodynamic sweet spot, i.e. the ideal price. This means that the yearly average trajectory of the oil price will not be affected much by an oil spill. Do you understand?



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Pretty funny bullshit when you read the nonsense which supposedly has something to do with the price of oil. It's an economic game as long as the availability of the hydrocarbons is sufficient. It's the oil industries baby. The source of the oil industries bottom line. They know pretty much everything associated with the subject. Thinking they don't is juvenile. I have first hand experience working in the industry for 40 years. If we were going to run out of oil in 5 years it would be a complete obliteration of the bottom line. So what can we surmise from that? Futilist is a doomsday crank for thinking otherwise.

You are just an oil industry shill. No wonder you are having anger issues.

I agree that the oil industry knows pretty much everything there is to know about oil production. But so what? They still have to play the cards they are dealt.

All extractive industries are eventually subject to depletion. The end of the oil age was going to happen sooner or later. The oil industry could never stop it. What we are seeing now is how one would expect the oil industry to react to the inevitable situation. They are doing the best they can to keep making as much money as they can. The oil industry is along for the thermodynamic ride.

"Petroleum is no longer responding to a downward cycle in prices by producing a comparable increase in demand. There are no Econ 101, or barrel counting hypothesis to account for this behavior. The energy approach used by the Etp Model does however explain what is occurring. It states that a unit of petroleum can no longer power enough economic activity to allow the economy to buy all of it. There will always be an excess of supply that will push prices ever downward:

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm

The world will never again be able to consume all the petroleum that is produced!

It is a going out of business sale!"
~BWHill



---Futilitist

 

[Write4U]

The world will never again be able to consume all the petroleum that is produced!

That is truly a bizarre statement, considering the Exponential Function.

"It is a going out of business sale!",

~BWHill. ---Futilitist

Does that mean, "will stop producing"? You don't see the contradiction in those two statements?

 

[Futilitist]

Write4U,

I have no idea what you are talking about. Your comment doesn't make any sense. You have to write more clearly if you want to be understood. Something (likely based on your misunderstanding) is bothering you, but from your vague description, I can't tell what it is. I cannot read your mind, so I cannot answer you.

Read the whole quote again. There are no bizarre statements that somehow supposedly violate the exponential function. There are no contradictions at all.

"Petroleum is no longer responding to a downward cycle in prices by producing a comparable increase in demand. There are no Econ 101, or barrel counting hypothesis to account for this behavior. The energy approach used by the Etp Model does however explain what is occurring. It states that a unit of petroleum can no longer power enough economic activity to allow the economy to buy all of it. There will always be an excess of supply that will push prices ever downward:

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm

The world will never again be able to consume all the petroleum that is produced!

It is a going out of business sale!"
~BWHill



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

La la la. Answer this:



http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Saudi-Oil-Price-War-Is-Backfiring.html


The oil price is an economic game... The Etp model is for the ignorant.

Lalala indeed. This must be the 4th or 5th time Fute has posted the same diagram and equations. He has yet to respond to Russ W's observation that nowhere in these equations does the chemical energy of the oil as fuel appear. So the dominant source of available energy in the system, which in fact drives all the transport and refining of oil, is ignored. The model - according to Fute at least - treats oil as if it were water .

No wonder the conclusion is that we're DOOMED. If we were wasting our time extracting a mineral with no energy content, that would certainly be true.

 

[exchemist]

Pretty funny bullshit when you read the nonsense which supposedly has something to do with the price of oil. It's an economic game as long as the availability of the hydrocarbons is sufficient. It's the oil industries baby. The source of the oil industries bottom line. They know pretty much everything associated with the subject. Thinking they don't is juvenile. I have first hand experience working in the industry for 40 years. If we were going to run out of oil in 5 years it would be a complete obliteration of the bottom line. So what can we surmise from that? Futilist is a doomsday crank for thinking otherwise.

A long while ago I asked Fute whether he thought the whole oil industry had somehow missed the impending armageddon or whether he thought they were conspiring to hush it up. He has never given a clear answer to that, though he did insinuate a conspiracy, involving the oil industry and governments.

I hear the sound of white coats flapping……………..

 

[Futilitist]

Hey exchemist. I am over here. You keep having side conversations with everyone else.

Talk to me. Are you afraid?

A long while ago I asked Fute whether he thought the while oil industry had somehow missed the impending armageddon or whether he thought they were conspiring to hush it up. He has never given a clear answer to that, though he did insinuate a conspiracy, involving the oil industry and governments.

I hear the sound of white coats flapping……………..

You are such a liar, exchemist. Here is what really happened:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...rically-confirmed.152487/page-11#post-3324258

exchemist said:
The notion that there is a looming catastrophe, due to thermodynamics, which has somehow been missed by everyone in both government planning and in the relevant industries, is stark staring mad.

Futilitist said:
It is quite apparent from your reaction, and the general reactions from almost everyone on this forum, that people aren't necessarily very open to hearing about this looming catastrophe. People don't like bad news. And this is really, really bad news. Hell, it's pretty much the worst news ever.

If you were the President of the United States or the CEO of a major corporation, how would you break the news of the upcoming apocalypse to the world?

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

He did not answer my question, but later on:

exchemist said:
There is no such thing as a "commodities complex", except possibly as a rare psychiatric condition, suffered by certain people. Anyway, whatever else may be debatable, what is absolutely for sure is the slowdown in China has fuck-all to do with the thermodynamics of oil extraction. It is to do with the natural evolution of the Chinese economy and the (mis)management of it. As any halfway decent newspaper article can tell you.

Futilitist said:
And the natural evolution of the Chinese economy is thermodynamic. Duh.

How would any halfway decent newspaper article announce the end of the world? What would the headline say?

exchemist said:
I would be fascinated to see by what argument the current property bubble in China could be attributed to thermodynamics.
As for the newspaper headline, how about, "The End of the World is Nigh!"?

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

Note---Some time had passed, and, having still gotten no answer to my original question, I asked it again:

Futilitist said:
"exchemist said:
The notion that there is a looming catastrophe, due to thermodynamics, which has somehow been missed by everyone in both government planning and in the relevant industries, is stark staring mad.

Futilitist said:
It is quite apparent from your reaction, and the general reactions from almost everyone on this forum, that people aren't necessarily very open to hearing about this looming catastrophe. People don't like bad news. And this is really, really bad news. Hell, it's pretty much the worst news ever."

If you were the President of the United States or the CEO of a major corporation, how would you break the news of the upcoming apocalypse to the world?

So, anyway, you completely dodged the question. How about answering it now?"

exchemist said:
You seem to insinuate that the president of the USA and the CEOs of major corporations know that there is an impending apocalypse but are not telling people. Do you really believe this ?

Futilitist said:
Answering my question with another question is dodging. Again.

I am not insinuating anything. You are the one who originally insinuated that I must be wrong because no one in a position of authority has said we are going to have an apocalypse. You implied that if the President knew we were going to have an apocalypse, he would tell us directly. I just asked you how he might break the news. So, once again:

If you were the President of the United States or the CEO of a major corporation, how would you break the news of the upcoming apocalypse to the world?

It is a simple question. Just answer it. I won't let you off the hook.

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

Lalala indeed. This must be the 4th or 5th time Fute has posted the same diagram and equations. He has yet to respond to Russ W's observation that nowhere in these equations does the chemical energy of the oil as fuel appear. So the dominant source of available energy in the system, which in fact drives all the transport and refining of oil, is ignored. The model - according to Fute at least - treats oil as if it were water .

That is another lie, exchemist. I did respond to Russ_Watters:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...rically-confirmed.152487/page-32#post-3329479

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.

Here is a more complete answer to your chemical energy question from a post I made to Write4U:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...rically-confirmed.152487/page-26#post-3328145

It is important not to mix up the chemical energy contained in a barrel of crude with the energetic cost of producing that barrel of crude. Both are thermodynamic in nature, but they are two very different things. The chemical energy contained in a barrel of 37.5 API crude oil has basically not changed over time. But the energetic cost of oil production and exploration has risen dramatically (exponentially). This means that the average net energy (EROEI) of a barrel of oil must, in fact, decline over time.

The Etp model does not consider the chemical energy contained in a barrel of oil, since that is basically constant. Instead, the Etp model calculates the rising energetic cost of oil production by using the second law of thermodynamics to find the rate of entropy change in the entire oil production process over time.

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

All you do is lie and cheat. You refuse to engage in serious, rational debate. Unpacking your deceptive bullshit is becoming a full time job. I have better things to do. You are wasting my time, exchemist.



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Hey exchemist.

Here is a post you forgot to answer:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...rically-confirmed.152487/page-27#post-3328442

"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]

I want to step out on a limb here and make another bold, amazing prediction:

I predict that exchemist will dodge my questions to him yet again!

Of course, this is a somewhat risky move on my part, since exchemist could easily foil my latest prediction by honestly taking a crack at the questions I posed. But even with this incentive, I still think my prediction is secure because exchemist is so afraid to engage in a real debate.

But exchemist will have to decide. It is all up to him. I am going to sleep.

---EDIT---

(As a side prediction, I'll bet we will once again see exchemist's staunchest defender, krash661, with his inane "sheet" demands and charges of hypocrisy for not answering him even though I really did on at least two separate occasions.)



---Futilitist

 

[Write4U]

Write4U,

I have no idea what you are talking about. Your comment doesn't make any sense. You have to write more clearly if you want to be understood. Something (likely based on your misunderstanding) is bothering you, but from your vague description, I can't tell what it is. I cannot read your mind, so I cannot answer you.

Read the whole quote again. There are no bizarre statements that somehow supposedly violate the exponential function. There are no contradictions at all.

"Petroleum is no longer responding to a downward cycle in prices by producing a comparable increase in demand. There are no Econ 101, or barrel counting hypothesis to account for this behavior. The energy approach used by the Etp Model does however explain what is occurring. It states that a unit of petroleum can no longer power enough economic activity to allow the economy to buy all of it. There will always be an excess of supply that will push prices ever downward:

Yes, oil will just bubble up from an inexhaustible supply of crude, deep down in the earth, a wellspring of cheap oil!

The world will never again be able to consume all the petroleum that is produced!

Yes and who will be the producer of this inexhaustible supply? Oil companies?

It is a going out of business sale!"
~BWHill

Perhaps you need to take a moment to reflect on the term "Going out of business sale". It is usually followed by the warning of "hurry, stock is limited", or "everything must go".

going-out-of-business sale
Legend: Noun
1. going-out-of-business sale - a sale of all the tangible assets of a business that is about to close; "during the Great Depression going-out-of-business sales were very common"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/going-out-of-business sale

 

[Beer w/Straw]

If you were the President of the United States or the CEO of a major corporation, how would you break the news of the upcoming apocalypse to the world?

How do you sleep at night? If you truly were intelligent and cared you would put realistic effort into your predictions. Not make up useless charts to spam, spam and spam some more with the delusion that it makes yourself appear smart. I can only imagine that if you had a girlfriend that all your apocalyptic wooing she would see as an excuse for her to smoke crack.

 

[krash661]

The world will never again be able to consume all the petroleum that is produced!

It is a going out of business sale!"
~BWHill

i thought oil was running out in five years, so how would the world be able to consume what cannot be produced, remember ?
and then the next line says out of business, but yet in the first line,"The world will never again be able to consume all the petroleum that is produced! "?
odd.

 

[krash661]

krash661, with his inane "sheet" demands and charges of hypocrisy for not answering him even though I really did on at least two separate occasions.)

this only show that you're completely clueless to what you spew about.
hilarious. and no, there is no answers, i'm requesting for you too show your inputs, you have continuously sidestep this rather than answer and show, then spew a hypocritical comment in the very next line. for me, it's massively obvious why you continue to sidestep my request.
all in all, schizophrenic alert......
shrugs.
~~~~THE KRASH661^10

 

[Futilitist]

Write4U,

You are working very hard to create a false argument.

Yes, oil will just bubble up from an inexhaustible supply of crude, deep down in the earth, a wellspring of cheap oil!
Yes and who will be the producer of this inexhaustible supply? Oil companies?

Who said anything about an inexhaustible supply? You just made that up.

The oil that is currently being produced is not "cheap". It is expensive to produce, but it must be sold at a cheap price because consumers cannot afford expensive oil. Oil is being sold at a price that is below the cost of it's production. This will eventually (by 2021) put all of the oil companies "out of business".

Petroleum is no longer responding to a downward cycle in prices by producing a comparable increase in demand. There are no Econ 101, or barrel counting hypothesis to account for this behavior. The energy approach used by the Etp Model does however explain what is occurring. It states that a unit of petroleum can no longer power enough economic activity to allow the economy to buy all of it. There will always be an excess of supply that will push prices ever downward. The world will never again be able to consume all the petroleum that is produced! It is a going out of business sale!"
~BWHill

There is nothing inconsistent in the above statement. You are pulling lines out of context to create a misimpression. The part you keep conveniently leaving out when expressing your astonishment is:

...a unit of petroleum can no longer power enough economic activity to allow the economy to buy all of it. There will always be an excess of supply that will push prices ever downward.

It is only by intentionally ignoring this part that are you able to construct your false argument with BWHill's metaphor.

It is your constant tendency to create false arguments that causes me to question your sincerity. When I showed how ridiculous your oil spill argument was, you immediately dropped it without acknowledging you were wrong about that one. Instead, you constructed this false, insubstantial argument about BWHill's metaphor. Now that I have swatted away this stupid argument, you will quickly construct another one. The cumulative record visible on this thread is that you haven't made a single valid point in this whole debate! I have answered all of your objections to the Etp model. You just refuse to admit it.

Perhaps you need to take a moment to reflect on the term "Going out of business sale".

Okay.

going-out-of-business sale

Legend: Noun
1. going-out-of-business sale - a sale of all the tangible assets of a business that is about to close; "during the Great Depression going-out-of-business sales were very common"

Let's see...

The Etp model forecasts that the price of oil will keep falling until the oil companies are all forced out of business by around 2021. In the meantime, they will be selling oil below the cost of it's production because consumers cannot afford expensive oil. Selling something below it's cost of production is a sale. The situation is very similar to the deflationary spiral we call the Great Depression, during which going-out-of-business sales were very common.

So, what was your point, again?



---Futilitist

 

[Kondratieff]

I don't have enough time to respond ex-chemist (ex-chemist: I am not trying to defend the validity of the ETP Model as Futilitist is doing - what I am doing is to look at signs and trends that can help us to validate the outlook of the ETP model and Steve Ludlum's forecast. One thing is sure: If oil prices rise to 80$ next year, and stay there during the whole year, the ETP model will have failed miserably... so far, it is not happening, so I am trying to examine the reality until reality dismisses me, you or both- I can use more sources and I will definitely do it. You can discuss my sources, I can discuss yours, that's how we play the game here), however I would like to make a point. Oil price will not drop to 0 $ in 2021, not even BW Hills is considering that price:

Thanks for the question. I don't think that consumption will fall straight down to zero. If you look at the bottom graph (Maximum affordable price curve @ http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm ) you will see some arrows going off at about $30/barrel. $30 is just our guess as to when some other effects will start to kick in. Those effects are when the oil producers will start to "mine" the embedded energy in their infrastructure. We estimate that at 87 Gb. The price will fall to the point, however, where all E&D will come to a conclusion. After that only the legacy fields will remain. Field, and general maintenance cost will be reduced, and EOR will stop as too expensive to continue.

In my opinion, Oil will still have a minimum value since it could be used as an energy vector.

Best Regards,

 

[Futilitist]

I don't have enough time to respond ex-chemist (ex-chemist: I am not trying to defend the validity of the ETP Model as Futilitist is doing - what I am doing is to look at signs and trends that can help us to validate the outlook of the ETP model and Steve Ludlum's forecast. One thing is sure: If oil prices rise to 80$ next year, and stay there during the whole year, the ETP model will have failed miserably... so far, it is not happening, so I am trying to examine the reality until reality dismisses me, you or both- I can use more sources and I will definitely do it. You can discuss my sources, I can discuss yours, that's how we play the game here), however I would like to make a point. Oil price will not drop to 0 $ in 2021, not even BW Hills is considering that price:

Thanks for the question. I don't think that consumption will fall straight down to zero. If you look at the bottom graph (Maximum affordable price curve @ http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm ) you will see some arrows going off at about $30/barrel. $30 is just our guess as to when some other effects will start to kick in. Those effects are when the oil producers will start to "mine" the embedded energy in their infrastructure. We estimate that at 87 Gb. The price will fall to the point, however, where all E&D will come to a conclusion. After that only the legacy fields will remain. Field, and general maintenance cost will be reduced, and EOR will stop as too expensive to continue.

In my opinion, Oil will still have a minimum value since it could be used as an energy vector.

Best Regards,

Just to be clear again, BWHill says 30 dollars is where the effects of mining the embedded energy will begin. Hill forecasts the price of oil will settle at a little over 11 dollars by 2021. And this best case scenario is dependent on the economy not collapsing in the meantime.

What do you think about the fact that exchemist is already dodging your valid, honest argument?


--Futilitist