The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
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:cool:

I thought this thread was about the Etp model. Are we now to discuss the relevance of those questions?
 
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:cool:
All of those questions have answer #7: Irrelevant to the topic.
 
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?

Does that mean you are retracting whatever it was you were claiming in the opening post?

Because I just got here and I thought you were an expert in ink blot testing or something.

I think "dragon in the sky" sounds fine, but "I just independently confirmed the ETP model" sounds overblown, not what we'd expect from the mellowing effect of academia.

I don't have time to read 43 pages of dialog, so do you mind breaking this down for me? An abstract, as they say, would be fine.

Also, how come you just copied the other post into this thread? Is that supposed to bring up your hit counter or what?
 
Write4U,

You are working very hard to create a false argument.


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

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.


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?
when you first started this topic ,your stance was there is no more wells, no more wells will be found during this time frame. the world will destroy itself from no more oil by 2021..
now you are saying, there will be too much oil and it will be so cheap that these oil companies will go out of business by 2012 and the world will destroy itself.*
all in all, this etp is already wrong, one of the functions haves collapsed. anything that is claimed by this etp ,whatever the claim actually is,will never happen, and i stand by my word on this. look me up at that time so i can say 'told your professional mental malfunction-ist self so.'

* when oil is massively cheap, suppliers who buy oil will buy more than usual, it's referred to as taking an advantage. as they're buying it for a year later or so. as they buy this cheap inventory, they cause the price to rise from the excessive buying of this cheap inventory. in turn, oil prices increases.
 
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,
keep in mind all talk of this is only from brent.. what about wti and opec ?
it has already failed as we're all typing here.
then on top of that my request for inputs is continuously sidestepped for odd reasons, so in a sense, there's no validity from the beginning.
 
What do you think about the fact that exchemist is already dodging your valid, honest argument?
more hypocritical spewing.
also, oil dropping below production price is nothing new or worrisome. it occurs almost year over year, for decades now.
 
What are your qualifications?
four PhDs [ which are physics and mathematics] and a series seven.[<~~~ one should comprehend what this means]
You are trying/failing to make an argument from authority.
is this not the whole entire point of having PhDs. the point being, an authority. meaning expert. which in turn creates an authority.
so far, i exceed this hill guys qualifications.

i'm now curious of your qualifications. which i'm sure there is none.
 
Why not argue just debate the proposition that the Etp model is valid?
i tried, but my request continues to be sidestepped for some odd reasons.
:) shrugs.
 
Does that mean you are retracting whatever it was you were claiming in the opening post?

Because I just got here and I thought you were an expert in ink blot testing or something.

I think "dragon in the sky" sounds fine, but "I just independently confirmed the ETP model" sounds overblown, not what we'd expect from the mellowing effect of academia.
I meant it to be a bit tongue in cheek. Sort of a reference to Eddington and his 1919 "confirmation" of relativity through a direct observation of light deflection.

I made a direct observation of unusual non-linear dynamic "squealing" patterns in various moving averages of the oil price. The angular price moves seem to correspond to the angles of the two Etp curves. This all lines up well with the Etp model's timing for the crossover event. This independent empirical evidence tends to confirm the validity of the Etp model.

WTI%20Futilitist%20Oil%20Price%20Angular%20Coincidences%20Small_zpsdrlsff8u.jpg


I don't have time to read 43 pages of dialog, so do you mind breaking this down for me? An abstract, as they say, would be fine.

"The ETP model is the solution of a thermodynamic equation that gives the amount of energy on average it takes to produce oil, and its products. By subtracting that value from its energy content (exergy), the remainder is what is left over for the economy to use. When the remainder is no longer sufficent to pay for the oil, the price of oil must go down."
~BWHill

The Etp model is based on the second law of thermodynamics. It models the entropy in the life cycle of the oil production system. The energy from oil must produce enough economic activity (GDP/barrel) that consumers can afford to pay for the entire oil production system, including investment in future production. This ran in a self-sustaining loop until the thermodynamic limit was reached, and the total cost of oil production exceeded the consumers ability to pay for it. This occurred around March of 2012. The oil price crashed in June of 2014 and from here on out, the net energy in a barrel of oil can no longer support both the economy and the entire oil production system. The oil industry will shrink while the economy will get weaker. The Etp model forecasts that oil will reach what is called the "zero state" around 2021. At that point, it will take the energy from 1 barrel of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil, and oil use will no longer add to GDP. Oil currently provides about 38% of world GDP.

Futilitist%20End%20of%20the%20Oil%20Age%20Small_zpsaske3rd0.jpg


As the graph above clearly shows, the Etp Model Curve intersected the Etp Maximum Price Curve around March of 2012. Although the oil price immediately plunged quite rapidly, the Fed unleashed Operation Twist and QE3. This helped the price recover and it broke through the Etp Maximum Price Curve and managed to continue to rise for a while. At the time of the start of the price collapse in June of 2014, the oil price (WTIC) was around 107 dollars a barrel, but the Etp Maximum price had already fallen well below the actual price. That meant that the economic benefit (GDP/barrel) of a barrel of oil had fallen to the point that the energy in a barrel of oil could no longer support such a high price. So, the price naturally collapsed.

"The 2012 energy half way point initiated a major change in the petroleum production function. It began a process where the end consumer was no longer able to acquire all the petroleum that the industry produced. More of the energy from petroleum was being committed to the production of petroleum than was being delivered to the consumer. This precipitated the 2014 price decline that reduced prices by 50%. The energy delivered to the end consumer will continue to decline, and the end consumer maximum affordability will decline with it. It will be necessary for the industry to reduce production to compensate. The highest cost production fields will continually be shut in as the price falls below their operating minimum.

The ETP model's predicted rapid decline event is in opposition to the contemporary assumption that production will phase out slowly. The slow decline scenario is known as "sliding down Hubbert's curve". Implied in this belief is the assumption that all barrels of petroleum were made equal in quality, and will remain so in time. Of course this conflicts with the Second Law, and thus can not be an accurate representation of the situation. All barrels were not made with an API of 30-45°, nor is the energy needed to extract, process and distribution them the same over time. It has to increase.

As the price increased during the prior 2012 cycle, demand for finished products by the non energy goods producing sector of the economy did not diminish. This apparent violation of the Supply/Demand principal occurred because up until 2012 the use of petroleum returned more revenue to the user than it cost them. The use of petroleum was energy positive for the end user; it required less to extract it, and produce its products than it delivered to the economy. After 2012 that was reversed, and demand increases could only result from the energy producing sector. As production begins to decline so also will demand."

~BWHill

That's the basic idea. If you want to look deeper, read my posts in this thread.

Also, how come you just copied the other post into this thread?
What other post?

Is that supposed to bring up your hit counter or what?
What is a hit counter?



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
I meant it to be a bit tongue in cheek. Sort of a reference to Eddington and his 1919 "confirmation" of relativity through a direct observation of light deflection.

I made a direct observation of unusual non-linear dynamic "squealing" patterns in various moving averages of the oil price. The angular price moves seem to correspond to the angles of the two Etp curves. This all lines up well with the Etp model's timing for the crossover event. This independent empirical evidence tends to confirm the validity of the Etp model.

WTI%20Futilitist%20Oil%20Price%20Angular%20Coincidences%20Small_zpsdrlsff8u.jpg
In the first place, I have no idea where this data came from, and what it represents. Second, the annotations you superimposed on the data, and whatever kind of curve fitting you used, are meaningless to me, since I haven't seen an explanation of why this was even done. It looks like hocus pocus to me - completely arbitrary, and unfounded. The raw data is what it is, and once it's explained I guess I could comment further. But the rest appears to really suck,

"The ETP model is the solution of a thermodynamic equation that gives the amount of energy on average it takes to produce oil, and its products. By subtracting that value from its energy content (exergy), the remainder is what is left over for the economy to use. When the remainder is no longer sufficent to pay for the oil, the price of oil must go down."
~BWHill
I can't believe this involves solving any thermodynamic equation. WTF are they talking about? Sounds like more hocus pocus.

The Etp model is based on the second law of thermodynamics. It models the entropy in the life cycle of the oil production system.
That makes absolutely no sense to me. You are having a serious problem setting up your proposition. As I said, I am a newcomer here and I would like a concise statement from you that establishes the need for whatever methods are being applied to come up with these claims. So far, it looks completely fraudulent to me.

It makes no sense to talk about a model of raw data that has already happened, unless you are trying to match this raw data with some other data that is causal (have you done any systems modelling -- finite element analysis)? Doesn't look like it. In those applications, you usually start with some kind of drawing (functional block diagram, for crying out loud) and then model each block, and continue down the hierarchy until stopping on some set of system elements which model as (usually) one of three passive elements (resistance, capacitance and inductance in the electrical analogues most often used) and then the rest are active elements with something like "gain" or "attenuation" or "modulation" or whatever.

Based on that presentation of the system, you now have a valid basis to lay out a set of partial differential equations which represent the system, and thereafter you can show how it responds to input stimulus.

This is the elementary approach to basic system modelling, but geez, I can't even get there from here.

The energy from oil must produce enough economic activity (GDP/barrel) that consumers can afford to pay for the entire oil production system, including investment in future production.
Uh... that is probably one of the most convoluted statements I have ever seen. GDP/barrel? WTF? Who is making all these proclamations? Who decides that? This sounds like neither science nor economics. Sounds like a sermon. Where is the data that says what you are saying? So far I see bald claims, no science, no economics, no mathematical basis for anything. Give us some cites to authorities that explain how this ratio is caluculated. Because if it is just GDP divided by the barrels consumed, then provide that data and explain WTF the correlation is. Because you need a helluva lot more information to arrive at any claims of correlation. The number of barrels could go up because people started buying gas guzzlers. That would not necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with GDP. (For example. There have to be countless examples.)

This ran in a self-sustaining loop until the thermodynamic limit was reached,
WTF??? Oh yeah, system block diagrams with feedback can have all kinds of innovations on the above modelling steps I mentioned. There are all kinds of controls in place, all kinds of ways demand, cost of production, etc., moderate system behavior. But you give us nothing to go on. Looks like you just pulled all this out of your ... back pocket.

and the total cost of oil production exceeded the consumers ability to pay for it. This occurred around March of 2012.
Proof? How about some cites!?

The oil price crashed in June of 2014 and from here on out, the net energy in a barrel of oil can no longer support both the economy and the entire oil production system.
Well that sounds pitiful. But the price recently fell to a new low (at the pump, where I am) so I guess they caught up on their impoverished development projects. Again: cites?

The oil industry will shrink while the economy will get weaker.
Really? Everywhere I go I see traffic, traffic, traffic. New cars and trucks, new rigs, and flights in an out about once a second. So what gives? Are you living in North Korea, or some part of East Germany that hasn't heard that the wall came down? Because some other people are elbow to elbow in the street with all the work going on. (I don't think all those service vehicles are just out sightseeing.)

The Etp model forecasts that oil will reach what is called the "zero state" around 2021.
Considering the foregoing, it sounds like you need to scrap this model and start accessing the thousands of academic sources that deal with economic modelling. I would start with finite element analysis if I were you, but that's just me talking. How about at least starting with one scrap of information we can use?

At that point, it will take the energy from 1 barrel of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil, and oil use will no longer add to GDP.
Wow, so then when it costs two barrels to produce one, then the feedback loop kicks in, and the system lands on a new plateau? Sounds pretty far fetched. Oh maybe I'm finally getting this: all of the incompetent managers will be fired, oil companies will restaff their board rooms, and a new model will emerge - one which tries to make a profit???
 
Oil currently provides about 38% of world GDP.
Cite? I have no idea what that statement is even supposed to mean.

Data source? Explanation of the data, and the analysis method?

As the graph above clearly shows, the Etp Model Curve intersected the Etp Maximum Price Curve around March of 2012.
Even if that were true (which I doubt) it represents a local maximum, and the projections into the future are utterly bogus. Sorry to bust your bubble, but this has to be one of the worst pieces of analysis I have ever seen,

Although the oil price immediately plunged quite rapidly, the Fed unleashed Operation Twist and QE3. This helped the price recover and it broke through the Etp Maximum Price Curve and managed to continue to rise for a while.
Even if that analysis were true, it says nothing about the future, insofar as there is no telling how many future uses of monetary easing may occur, not to mention all the thousands of other things that could happen, to change the course of an economy. Here you committing the cardinal sin of failing to state your assumptions. Again, sorry to bust your bubble, but even with only a Master's in ME you should be able to follow that much logic. (You must have had a very sheltered graduate experience. Even most undergrads wouldn't buy this shoddy presentation.)

At the time of the start of the price collapse in June of 2014, the oil price (WTIC) was around 107 dollars a barrel, but the Etp Maximum price had already fallen well below the actual price. That meant that the economic benefit (GDP/barrel) of a barrel of oil had fallen to the point that the energy in a barrel of oil could no longer support such a high price. So, the price naturally collapsed.
That is so freaking ludicrous I am somewhere between laughing and flipping you off. Seriously, you are nowhere near the standard necessary to make sweeping claims as grandiose as this. This is fucking pseudoscience (pseudoeconomics), pal, not even qualified for dragging in here.

"The 2012 energy half way point initiated a major change in the petroleum production function. It began a process where the end consumer was no longer able to acquire all the petroleum that the industry produced. More of the energy from petroleum was being committed to the production of petroleum than was being delivered to the consumer. This precipitated the 2014 price decline that reduced prices by 50%. The energy delivered to the end consumer will continue to decline, and the end consumer maximum affordability will decline with it. It will be necessary for the industry to reduce production to compensate. The highest cost production fields will continually be shut in as the price falls below their operating minimum.
[
Presumably that is only happening in the USA and/or some other countries not yet identified. But as demand continues to grow in places like China, Brazil (yeah I know they have sugar - and you need a belt of their highly fermented blackstrap molasses) and wherever economies will sprout up over the most unpredictable kinds of resources, trends, etc. - then all of this analysis is wasted.

The ETP model's predicted rapid decline event is in opposition to the contemporary assumption that production will phase out slowly. The slow decline scenario is known as "sliding down Hubbert's curve". Implied in this belief is the assumption that all barrels of petroleum were made equal in quality, and will remain so in time. Of course this conflicts with the Second Law, and thus can not be an accurate representation of the situation. All barrels were not made with an API of 30-45°, nor is the energy needed to extract, process and distribution them the same over time. It has to increase.
My pseudoscience bullshit meter went off as soon as you drag in thermogoddamits. Of all the freakin' --- eh. Crap. What turnip truck did you fall off of?

As the price increased during the prior 2012 cycle, demand for finished products by the non energy goods producing sector of the economy did not diminish. This apparent violation of the Supply/Demand principal occurred because up until 2012 the use of petroleum returned more revenue to the user than it cost them. The use of petroleum was energy positive for the end user; it required less to extract it, and produce its products than it delivered to the economy. After 2012 that was reversed, and demand increases could only result from the energy producing sector. As production begins to decline so also will demand."
This sounds like it was modeled after the doublespeak we used to get from our Chair of the Fed. What a crock. Classic psuedoscience, etc.

That's the basic idea. If you want to look deeper, read my posts in this thread.
No thanks. This is worse than severe constipation.

What other post?
Never mind.

What is a hit counter?
Never mind.
 
In the first place, I have no idea where this data came from, and what it represents.
You asked for a summary because you said you didn't have time to read the thread. I nicely provided a summary for you. Now you are bitching because there isn't enough detail. That is a cheap trick. All of the lame, kneejerk arguments you brought up have already been well covered in the thread. I am not starting over for you. You do not understand the Etp model, so your critique sucks.

I can't believe this involves solving any thermodynamic equation. WTF are they talking about?
Your personal astonishment is not a valid argument.

Like I said, you asked for a summary. Here are some more thermodynamic details for you to chew on:

"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

Boundary%20conditions_zpse1brybjr.jpg


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 exactly do you find wrong with the methodology, above, used to develop the Etp function?


My pseudoscience bullshit meter went off as soon as you drag in thermogoddamits. Of all the freakin' --- eh. Crap.
My pseudoscience bullshit meter went off as soon as you showed up on the thread.



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
My pseudoscience bullshit meter went off as soon as you drag in thermogoddamits.

I believe everyone's did.

Is it a want to be a prophet of doom, predicting the apocalypse, the main driving force behind the blindness to fallacy?
 
Four PhDs Krash you must have gotten the first 2 before the age of 30 I always thought you were no older than 45?

Impressive...
actually i received my physics around 2011/12, spent almost ten years for my education. my mathematics came soon after, that was easy after the physics, i only had to write the dissertation for math.. it took around a year or so for my background to clear. after that i got two more during working for what i'm working now. it becomes easy to obtain more, at this point you just have to write dissertations and such.
i'm also in my early 30's.

the series 7 i received around 2012/13. that is massively easy , but one needs a institution sponsor. just understand econ and trading/investment law[ mainly law] and take the 8 hour test.
 
Last edited:
actually i received my physics around 2011/12, spent almost ten years for my education. my mathematics came soon after, that was easy after the physics, i only had to write the dissertation for math.. it took around a year or so for my background to clear. after that i got two more during working for what i'm working now. it becomes easy to obtain more, at this point you just have to write dissertations and such.
i'm also in my early 30's.

the series 7 i received around 2012/13. that is massively easy , but one needs a institution sponsor. just understand econ and trading/investment law[ mainly law] and take the 8 hour test.

Excellent explaination Krash and its funny becuase I got the impression you were in your 30's but with the four PhDs it wasn't a definite. Dissertations is an excellent explaination it makes perfect sense what you said, just like defeating the computer in chess on the highest level once you do it once it's easy to do again. So it's hard to keep bieng challenged unless you proceed to a more advance program.

By any chance are you interested in nano engineering?
 
If you have due dillegence and discipline it's realistic to obtain at least one PhD in your late 20's, if you are a child prodigy you would do it in your late teen's or early 20's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top