Why are the graphs relevant?
Let's see some actual calculations.
:EDIT:
With numbers.
Last edited:
The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed
- Thread starter Futilitist
- Start date
- Status
Let's see some actual calculations.
:EDIT:
With numbers.
LOL. His arguments are complete irrelevant bullshit and his behavior is juvenile. And he doesn't have the meta cognitive skills to recognize it. I thought the Dunning and Kruger analysis is spot on. The illiterate cranks dilemma. Not having the meta cognitive skills to recognize their lack of scholarship.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You cited this from your bible.Write4U,
You are working very hard to create a false argument.
Who said anything about an inexhaustible supply? You just made that up.
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.
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
[/QUOTE]After 2021, no more oil companies producing oil. Remember they are all going "out of business"! Then where will this ever lasting excess supply of oil come from? Gushers?
NO OIL PRODUCTION, NO OIL!!!!!
p.s. I can say that there is a 97.6% chance a daisy follows the Fibonacci Sequence during petal forming. Would that be a meaningful statement?
Last edited:
I don't have a bible. The quote comes from a discussion, not the Etp book.
To be exact, I actually cited this:
"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
That is correct.
Who said anything about an "everlasting supply"? Last time you called it an "inexhaustible supply" and I showed you that the quote never mentions such a thing. Now you come back with the same stupid argument only you have changed "inexhaustible supply" to "everlasting supply". Where are you getting this shit?
Read the whole quote again:
"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
It says nothing at all about an "everlasting supply"! It says the oil market will be over supplied with oil until the oil industry is out of business. I don't see any mention of an everlasting supply of oil. Please stop making shit up.
Oh wow! I think I just figured out your problem.
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!"
Are you just misunderstanding how BWHill is using the word always? Seriously?
You keep taking the one sentence out of context so you can change the intended meaning of the word "always". In context, "always" means from now until the oil industry is out of business. Do you understand? It is certainly not intended to mean that the oil industry will go out of business in 5.5 years and the world will always have an everlasting supply of oil anyway! That is stupid. Are you sure you aren't doing this on purpose?
If you are doing it on purpose, it is a deception and an annoying distraction. If you are doing it by accident, your entire argument is based entirely on your misunderstanding!
Which is it?You need to learn how to read.
Wow.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That is correct.
Who said anything about an "everlasting supply"? Last time you called it an "inexhaustible supply". Where are you getting this shit?
Read it again:
"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
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 says nothing at all about an "everlasting supply"! It says the oil market will be over supplied with until the oil industry is out of business. I don't see any mention of an everlasting supply of oil.
Oh wow! I think I just figured out your problem.
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.
Are you just misunderstanding how BWHill is using the word always? Seriously?
You need to learn how to read. ---Futilitist
You need to learn how to think critically. You could start with learning the definition of "always".
There will "always" be oil UNDER GROUND. We will not "always" be able to access this oil.
Therefore, we will not "always" have an oil production industry and not "always" have a supply of oil ABOVE GROUND.
Hills assertions amount to nothing more than a "hill of beans".
Bullshit pilled on more bullshit! I know what "always" means. You are the one who pulls lines from quotes out of context to change the intended meaning of "always"! You are constructing a straw man to create a fake argument. Maybe you are hoping that the readers are as illiterate as you are (or are pretending to be).
This is true. We agree about this. So does BWHill. What is your point?
This is true. We agree about this. So does BWHill. What is your point?
If BWHill's assertions are nothing more than a hill of beans, then so are yours. They are the same assertions!
Write4U's assertions
1) There will "always" be oil UNDER GROUND. We will not "always" be able to access this oil.
2) Therefore, we will not "always" have an oil production industry and not "always" have a supply of oil ABOVE GROUND.
BWHill would agree with your assertions, and his statement is completely consistent with your assertions. So what the hell is your argument?
This is silly. We are done with this.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
For certain. Why do you think this ridiculous thread would generate anything but?
Hey Write4U.
Here are a couple more quotes from BWHill for you to mull over:
"Production is falling (US production down 1.4% EIA), inventories are building (up 7.6 mb API), and the price is down 55% from the January 2014 high. If production is falling, and inventories are growing how do you get that there is an increase in demand?
This is happening in the face of a 55% decline in price, which says that demand should be soaring. The last time prices hit $45/ barrel was in October of 2004, and world production was about 68 mb/d. I can see no reason why things should be much different on the way down than they were on the way up. It seems likely that production will return to somewhere close to its historic volume/ price ratio.
That 0.8% increase the IEA is claiming, happened in the face of a 55% decline in price. If the price of horse shit went down 55% demand would increase by more than 0.8%. Like I said "what demand?" You are grasping at straws.
A 0.8% increase in consumption driven by a 55% decline in price is not an increase in demand. It is a going out of business sale!"
~BWHill
"The world's general economies (those outside the petroleum production process) are starved for energy. There is more oil than ever, and it is delivering less energy than it ever has before. Economies that can not grow, contract, and a lot of things come unglued when they do!"
~BWHill
Enjoy.
---Futilitist
Here are a couple more quotes from BWHill for you to mull over:
Some Idiot said:
"Production is falling (US production down 1.4% EIA), inventories are building (up 7.6 mb API), and the price is down 55% from the January 2014 high. If production is falling, and inventories are growing how do you get that there is an increase in demand?
This is happening in the face of a 55% decline in price, which says that demand should be soaring. The last time prices hit $45/ barrel was in October of 2004, and world production was about 68 mb/d. I can see no reason why things should be much different on the way down than they were on the way up. It seems likely that production will return to somewhere close to its historic volume/ price ratio.
That 0.8% increase the IEA is claiming, happened in the face of a 55% decline in price. If the price of horse shit went down 55% demand would increase by more than 0.8%. Like I said "what demand?" You are grasping at straws.
A 0.8% increase in consumption driven by a 55% decline in price is not an increase in demand. It is a going out of business sale!"
~BWHill
"The world's general economies (those outside the petroleum production process) are starved for energy. There is more oil than ever, and it is delivering less energy than it ever has before. Economies that can not grow, contract, and a lot of things come unglued when they do!"
~BWHill
Enjoy.
---Futilitist
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Futilitist,
This is silly. We are done with this. ---Futilitist
For a moment there I was relieved to see that statement. Then you had to go and ruin it with another post.
But now, my patience with your unending stream of ad hominem has run out and I am done with you!
You are just a boring troll.
Last edited:
Whatever.
Familiarity breeds contempt
1) Disagree Strongly
2) Disagree Mostly
3) Disagree Somewhat
4) Agree Somewhat
5) Agree Mostly
6) Agree Strongly
---Futilitist
Last edited:
That really doesn't answer the question. Being a director isn't a qualification.Director: The Hill's Group™ - B.W. Hill, B.S. ME, M.S., M.S. PM
---Futilitist
What are his qualifications in?
The Hill's Group™ Mining and Manufacturing Engineering
is an association of consulting engineers, and professional project managers.
It's director, BWHill, has a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering, and a Master of science in Project Management.
---Futilitist
Yeah, I guess, other than running a mining and manufacturing engineering association with a staff of physicists and engineers, and having a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering, and a Master of Science in Project Management. What are your qualifications?
You are trying/failing to make an argument from authority.
What is with you guys?
This is not the first time we have seen the argument from authority used on this thread. It is a bad argument that is generally seen as a logical fallacy. So why use it? Why not argue just debate the proposition that the Etp model is valid? Is it just because you guys can't come up with any good arguments? That is a pretty good explanation, but perhaps there is something more to all of this.
Would you mind answering a few questions for me?
Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues
1) Disagree Strongly
2) Disagree Mostly
3) Disagree Somewhat
4) Agree Somewhat
5) Agree Mostly
6) Agree Strongly
If people would talk less and work more, everybody would be better off
1) Disagree Strongly
2) Disagree Mostly
3) Disagree Somewhat
4) Agree Somewhat
5) Agree Mostly
6) Agree Strongly
The business man and the manufacturer are much more important to society than the artist and the professor
1) Disagree Strongly
2) Disagree Mostly
3) Disagree Somewhat
4) Agree Somewhat
5) Agree Mostly
6) Agree Strongly
Science has its place, but there are many important things that can never be understood by the human mind
1) Disagree Strongly
2) Disagree Mostly
3) Disagree Somewhat
4) Agree Somewhat
5) Agree Mostly
6) Agree Strongly
Most of our social problems would be solved if we could somehow get rid of the immoral, crooked, and feebleminded people
1) Disagree Strongly
2) Disagree Mostly
3) Disagree Somewhat
4) Agree Somewhat
5) Agree Mostly
6) Agree Strongly
When a person has a problem or worry, it is best for him not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things
1) Disagree Strongly
2) Disagree Mostly
3) Disagree Somewhat
4) Agree Somewhat
5) Agree Mostly
6) Agree Strongly
Thanks.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Among other things, B.S. apparently.
There seems to be no evidence of any other members of this alleged group. Nobody but Hills is listed on the website. And there seems to be no evidence that this "group" has any commercial or academic existence either. Nothing published, no client list, nothing, so far as I can trace.
If you google Hills or Hills Group, all you get is a handful of references to nutty discussions on Peak Oilers crank websites - and this forum of course.
Last edited:
What other apocalyptic threads has, Futilitist, made?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
One or two on this forum. Elsewhere, who knows?
- Status