What a maroon. So depletion is making the price go down? Is this guy trying to be funny?
The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed
- Thread starter Futilitist
- Start date
- Status
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes indeed. Furthermore, I posted, a while back in this thread, a reference to a graph that showed the significant number of projects that still make money at prices lower than this. From memory, I think the lowest break-even price on the graph was at $26/bbl. So even at $46/bbl, money is still being put into new development.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No, that is what he really thinks. And all based on a handful of equations that do not even take into account the energy value of the oil.
Completely absurd. The title of this three should be, the ept model has been empirically discredited.
You should put "thinks" in quotes because he really doesn't. This is a desperate attempt to hang on to a failed/discredited religion. When everyone realized what fracking was doing for the oil supply, Peak Oil died and was abandoned by all but the most devout followers. Those who were left searched desperately for any "logic" that could make sense of why reality was moving backwards from what they had predicted, and this Hills guy provided it. So he's the new Koresh of their dwindling but increasingly extremist cult.
But because the logic is backwards, this one will fail relatively quickly, unlike the original Peak Oil theory which actually had at least some merit/logic to it. Right now, he's riding on Saudi Arabia's stupid decision last year not to continue regulating the oil market. They could literally choose to end the glut/low price any day. But even if they don't, minus seasonal fluctuations, oil prices just can't stay under $50 a barrel long-term because there won't be enough fracking to keep up with demand at that rate.
you confirmed one of it's functions has already collapsed, years ago. data given does not have the same results as your chart shows, which leads to believe fictitious inputs were used...... etc.
when asked for the inputs used,
where was all this on that link?Here is another recent post by BWHill concerning the latest news that it is likely we have reached the all liquids peak:
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/ ... ction.html
Re: The Etp Model, Q & A
by shortonoil » Thu 17 Sep 2015, 14:09:36
Revi said:
"I think the way it's going to happen is a big recession, which will be blamed for the lack of demand."
i clicked on it and all there was, was a summary of other people's articles by this author,
By Nilofar Saidi
Posted on Tue, 15 September 2015 20:57
Bullshit. I have repeatedly answered your demand as best I can. You are fully aware of that. Please stop asking for inputs as if I haven't already sufficiently addressed your demand. It is intentionally misleading and requires that I clear up your attempted deception for the readers sake on every single page. You are trolling. Please stop this.
Here is was my answer to you the last you brought this up (again):
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...rically-confirmed.152487/page-44#post-3330996
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.
The determination of the three variables above are described in great detail in the Etp book. It is very technical and covers about 12 pages! It is beyond the scope of this thread to provide all of that here.
The program employed to calculate $$E_{TP}$$ (Equation #7) is the C++ program EtpX, which was developed in house by the Hill's Group.
Here is a post from peakoil.com from someone else who tried to run equation #7 . He had the Etp book and from that information he was able to approximate the three variables used in the equation:
Re: The Etp Model, Q & A
by Baduila » Fri 28 Aug 2015, 11:24:11Hi Whatever,
this image is generated with matlab code. I wanted to check if graph #8 in the hillsgroup study "petroghv2.pdf" is correct. I used eq. 7 and information from the study to write a short matlab routine. I have a deviation of minus 20% relative to the study, which is compensated by the faktor 1.2 mentioned in the image. The 20% deviation are easy explainable because i have no statistical information about wells or water cut or irregularities.
I am convinced graph #8 in the study is correct. I can send the code if you are interested.
If you really want to honestly evaluate the Etp model, why not sign up at peakoil.com and ask Baduila for his matlab routine?
I don't believe you ever did any calculations at all. If you did, prove it by showing your work. I would be very curious to see the inputs you supposedly came up with!
The link I posted works just fine.
Here it is:
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Cargo-Trends-Affirm-Falling-Oil-Production.html
Here is the link you posted:
http://oilprice.com/contributors/Nilofar-Saidi/news
That is clearly a different link. You embedded it under Nilofar Saidi and now you claim my link doesn't work. Why did you do this? The last time I put up the same link, you didn't have any problem linking to it. This is what you said then:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...rically-confirmed.152487/page-45#post-3331043
So you are now intentionally creating another stupid misunderstanding which I have to spend my time clearing up. Thanks troll.krash661 said:
When the oil price plunged, starting in June of 2014, you did not expect it. You were astonished.
When it reached low levels that you did not expect, you said (paraphrasing) "It will go back up and things will be fine."
When I offered up the Etp model to logically explain why the price went down, you said (paraphrasing) "Bullshit".
When the oil price stayed ridiculously low for a year, you said (paraphasing) "Supply and demand will fix this".
When I now quote BWHill logically forecasting that the oil price will continue to decline, you say (exactly) "How stupid is that? He doesn't think prices will go back up? What an idiot."
So far, your predictive track record is pretty terrible compared to BWHill's. But you call him an idiot and a moron. Amazing.
Can you provide a link to your post of the graph? If memory serves, I think it was billvon who posted that graph. But never mind that. I guess you just mean you commented on it.
You are making the ridiculous claim that the oil industry is doing just fine with oil prices below 50 dollars a barrel. That doesn't make mush sense, does it? Talk about denial.
That is a very complex rationalization, Russ.
1) Peak oil never "died". That is just peak oil denial propaganda.
2) The Etp model is not popular among "peak oilers". Most are unaware of it. Of those that are, many reject it just like you do.
3) The Saudis cannot control the oil price the way you claim.
1) Are you suggesting that the current low oil price is due to seasonal fluctuations?
2) Since we are experiencing a major oil supply glut, in order for oil prices to rise, production must fall.
3) If production falls too slowly, the oil price will not rise significantly.
4) If production falls too quickly, there will be a price spike that will destroy demand, since the economy is so weak.
5) We appear to be reaching the tipping point since it is likely we have reached the all liquids peak.
Welcome back, BTW.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Yes, it is: like I said, you'll do anything to keep your religion alive, no matter how stupid the logic twist is.
There was no bigger indicator of its death than the discontinuing of The Oil Drum website in 2013. The reality (yeah, I know you don't like reality) is that Peak Oilists are pretty rare these days because it is obvious to most of them that the idea failed and fracking is what killed it. But from about 2000-2010, Peak Oil was downright mainstream. Very few people saw fracking coming (I didn't - I was worried).
No doubt - most have skittered back under the floorboards and aren't paying attention anymore. It's only the hardiest, most devout, who can't let go and are desperate to sink their teeth into anything that claims to have a solution to bring it back to life.
No. You need to pay better attention. Your religious beliefs are clouding your reading comprehension/judgement.
Welcome to Economics 101. I give that a C-. You started off good, but then trailed-off into your fantasy. Gotta stay with the economics - use reality (real facts), even if you don't like what they say.
Thanks! I've actually been back for a little while, but there isn't much productive going on here, so I stayed away. I guess I'm bored today.
The complex rationalizations are yours, Russ. The Etp model offers the simplest explanation. Occam's razor.
The reality is that the anti-peak oil propaganda has worked very well. Till now.
When you didn't see fracking coming, you were justifiably worried. Now that you illogically don't see fracking ever going away, even though the oil price is obviously too low to support it, you should be even more worried. But you claim you aren't.
So, in your paranoid fantasy, people who believe in the concept of peak oil are like bugs, ready to sink their parasitic teeth into anything that will reanimate the hideous corpse of peak oil. Damn. This is worse than peak oil itself! This could affect the purity of our very civilization. Do you have a final solution to this terrible problem?
Futilitist said:
My reading comprehension is just fine, Russ. You brought up seasonal fluctuations:
Why did you bring up seasonal fluctuations?
Great non answer, Russ.
Perhaps you could try again, this time actually addressing the points that I listed. I even numbered them for clarity:
2) Since we are experiencing a major oil supply glut, in order for oil prices to rise, production must fall.
3) If production falls too slowly, the oil price will not rise significantly.
4) If production falls too quickly, there will be a price spike that will destroy demand, since the economy is so weak.
5) We appear to be reaching the tipping point since it is likely we have reached the all liquids peak.
You never seem to be able answer a straight question.
You're welcome.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
For those interested, here's an analysis of SA's behavior and the near-term oil price prospects:
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudis-Could-Face-An-Open-Revolt-At-Next-OPEC-Meeting.html
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudis-Could-Face-An-Open-Revolt-At-Next-OPEC-Meeting.html
Here is the article you posted concludes:
The December 2015 OPEC Meeting
Given the Saudi decision’s positive impact on their and their Gulf Arab allies’ relative position within OPEC and its negative impact on OPEC outsiders, it is possible, perhaps even likely, the Saudis will face an OPEC outsider revolt at the December 4 OPEC meeting. The Saudis and their Gulf Arab allies would seem to have three possible approaches, should a revolt occur:
Reconciliation, as Saudi Arabia acquiesces in the wishes of OPEC’s weaker members to bring price increases forward through OPEC production cuts, Saudi Arabia bearing the brunt;
Separation, as the Saudis and their Gulf Arab allies ignore their fellow members’ entreaties and force them to wait for “market” forces to balance supply and demand; or
Divorce, as the Saudis and their Gulf Arab allies decide to exploit their financial wealth and go their own way, therefore forcing their fellow OPEC members, unable to finance their domestic oil industries, unwillingly to bear the brunt of global production cuts.
In October 2014, the Saudis began signaling their intention to abandon their role as guarantor. It is unlikely however, that whatever Saudi decision makers are now considering, they will show their hand in advance of the December meeting, since this would reduce pressure on the non-OPEC producers that the Saudis claim to be targeting, before necessary.
--------------------
Your hopefulness is not justified. According to the article, the Saudis have 3 possible choices. Only one of those possible choices is what you think is going to happen. The other 2 choices would result in the current situation getting worse.
I will say once again that the Saudis don't have any real choice but to do what every other oil producer is being forced to do: Pump as hard as they can to maintain any cash flow at all.
I seriously doubt the Saudis will cut production and their own throats simultaneously.
Besides, all of your hopes and dreams seem to rest on the Saudis cutting production. What happens if they don't?
---Futilitist
The December 2015 OPEC Meeting
Given the Saudi decision’s positive impact on their and their Gulf Arab allies’ relative position within OPEC and its negative impact on OPEC outsiders, it is possible, perhaps even likely, the Saudis will face an OPEC outsider revolt at the December 4 OPEC meeting. The Saudis and their Gulf Arab allies would seem to have three possible approaches, should a revolt occur:
Reconciliation, as Saudi Arabia acquiesces in the wishes of OPEC’s weaker members to bring price increases forward through OPEC production cuts, Saudi Arabia bearing the brunt;
Separation, as the Saudis and their Gulf Arab allies ignore their fellow members’ entreaties and force them to wait for “market” forces to balance supply and demand; or
Divorce, as the Saudis and their Gulf Arab allies decide to exploit their financial wealth and go their own way, therefore forcing their fellow OPEC members, unable to finance their domestic oil industries, unwillingly to bear the brunt of global production cuts.
In October 2014, the Saudis began signaling their intention to abandon their role as guarantor. It is unlikely however, that whatever Saudi decision makers are now considering, they will show their hand in advance of the December meeting, since this would reduce pressure on the non-OPEC producers that the Saudis claim to be targeting, before necessary.
--------------------
Your hopefulness is not justified. According to the article, the Saudis have 3 possible choices. Only one of those possible choices is what you think is going to happen. The other 2 choices would result in the current situation getting worse.
I will say once again that the Saudis don't have any real choice but to do what every other oil producer is being forced to do: Pump as hard as they can to maintain any cash flow at all.
I seriously doubt the Saudis will cut production and their own throats simultaneously.
Besides, all of your hopes and dreams seem to rest on the Saudis cutting production. What happens if they don't?
---Futilitist
Last edited:
He might just dismiss the article. When I posted an article from that site about a price war with North America, Futilitist, just dismissed it:
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Saudi-Oil-Price-War-Is-Backfiring.html
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Saudi-Oil-Price-War-Is-Backfiring.html
What is your point? How does the article prove your point?
From the article:
"It is becoming apparent that non-OPEC producers are not as responsive to low oil prices as had been thought, at least in the short-run. The main impact has been to cut back on developmental drilling of new oil wells, rather than slowing the flow of oil from existing wells. This requires more patience," said a recent stability report by the Saudi Central Bank.
That would seem to support my position, not yours.
The article says that the Saudis are not behaving the way the author would like them to. Big surprise. It suggests that the Saudi strategy might backfire. I think it will eventually backfire, too, but the Saudis simply don't have a choice. The article fails to mention that the Saudis would be worse off if the author's advice were actually taken.
I am giving you my logical response to the article. My answer to you does not constitute "just dismissing". For some good examples of "just dismissing" an argument without giving a justification, see posts by Russ_Watters and exchemist.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Uh... It is not thermodynamics, but people trying a marketing strategy that is affecting the price of oil.
It's fascinating the amount of attention this guy gets. This is page 46 of this thread which should have been over after page 1 and 2. Since he's an intellectually dishonest doomsday troll the continued trolling has stretched it out to page 46 and most likely beyond. Ugh.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
What are we haggling about WHEN WE KNOW oil will no longer be available as a primary energy source in the near future?
One fact remains INDISPUTABLE, we are running out of oil! Exactly how, why, or when is irrelevant! Pick your poison!
1,786,761,764,936 Solar energy striking Earth today (MWh)
An inexhaustible supply of pure energy!
Can we not devise a "formula" (oh, and a chart) how and when to use this energy as our primary source of energy as it has always been?
"Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
One fact remains INDISPUTABLE, we are running out of oil! Exactly how, why, or when is irrelevant! Pick your poison!
1,786,761,764,936 Solar energy striking Earth today (MWh)
An inexhaustible supply of pure energy!
Can we not devise a "formula" (oh, and a chart) how and when to use this energy as our primary source of energy as it has always been?
"Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
In my view, the sole reason for this is that he has tried, absurdly, to co-opt a fundamental law of physics into supporting his ridiculous views. It is that which has got up the nose of the scientists reading this shite.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Hang on, why the technicolour and block capitals suddenly? You seem to have become like Fute (only kidding
). Have you been at the drinks cabinet on a Saturday night by any chance?Fossil fuel is only a way of mining previous stores of solar energy. And we are getting better at intercepting the real thing, in real time, thank goodness.
Curious bewilderment is one reason.
I never knew much about the oil industry in the first place.
And it is good comedy like this:
- Status