The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[krash661]

then you can claim the model is inaccurate. Until then, the model is accurate. Do you understand?

The graph I presented clearly says Etp Maximum Price Curve, in red. See?

---Futilitist

comical--so what is the minimum and middle(this is seriously comical-- i can do this type of predictions also, with anything). you do realize that all you have predicted is simply a range(which again, anyone can do without this flawed " model"), correct?

 

[Futilitist]

comical--so what is the minimum and middle(this is seriously comical-- i can do this type of predictions also, with anything). you do realize that all you have predicted is simply a range(which again, anyone can do without this flawed " model"), correct?

Anyone can predict anything, but the Etp model is *WAY* better than a wild assed guess.

The Etp model is a physics based model of the total energy used world-wide in the production, refining, and distribution of oil. It directly measures the rate of entropy production in the entire petroleum production system. The model is an application of the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes, which is a second law statement.

And by the way, the Etp model predicts that the yearly average price of oil will not exceed 66 dollars a barrel this year. And that is very bad news for fracking since the break even price for most fracking plays is around 80 dollars a barrel! So goodbye fracking. Forever.

The average oil price will not exceed 55 dollars a barrel next year, about 44 dollars the year after, and so on, until oil is no longer produced on any industrial scale anywhere on the earth. According to the Etp model that will be around 2021, less than 5 years from now. Oil currently supplies about 38% of total world energy and about 90 percent of all transportation fuels. It will be impossible for civilization to survive an energy loss anywhere near that severe. That is why I believe we are about to have an apocalypse.



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

Post 69 made 6 January 2013 at http://www.sciforums.com/threads/apocalypse-soon. 133084/page-4#post-3032857
"We have reached the end of economic growth. Collapse is next. ...Futilitist"

That was because oil prices would continually rise so rapidly with all the "easy oil" gone that society would collapse (necessary energy unafordable).

Post 1451 made 28 April 2016 less than a page backSince you made same prediction 3 years, 4 months earlier are we to conclude this sharp decline is more than 3 years into the future still? Or that "very sharply" is just a larger than usual fluctuation in the DOW average? Say back to 1700 again.

I predict you will continue with, ill defined, vague predictions even when they contradict your earlier predictions of rapid oil price rise.

No, now he's saying that the oil price will continue to go down , signalling the end of civilisation as we know it. Except that it will also go up, signalling the end of civilisation as we know it. Do try to keep up. Or down.

 

[Russ_Watters]

No, now he's saying that the oil price will continue to go down , signalling the end of civilisation as we know it. Except that it will also go up, signalling the end of civilisation as we know it. Do try to keep up. Or down.

Yes, and always remember - and this is very important - that cheap oil is unaffordable because it contains less energy than expensive oil...which is also unaffordable!

What happened to the ROFL emoticon? I need it. They're censoring me! This is is total BS! This forum is a sham! I quit!

 

[Billy T]

... if, somehow, oil does manage to average more than about 66 dollars a barrel this year, then you can claim the model is inaccurate. ...
The graph I presented clearly says Etp Maximum Price Curve, in red. See?

---Futilitist

Finally a well defined, not vague, prediction. You admit that the Etp model is BS if the AVERAGE price during 2016 does not exceed 66 dollars / brl.

I note your red curve shows the maximum price in 2017 is just a hair over 50 dollars /brl. Do you have data on the average price for the first four months of 2016? If yes, what is it?

I think it will be tough for last 8 months of 2016 to average enough higher than 66 dollars/brl to make the year's average > 66 dollars / brl, especially as for 2017 you predict will average only ~50 dollars / brl.

Last time you made a non-vague prediction was in the "Apocalypse soon" thread. It was false and very different from your current predictions. That prediction was initially qualified as true only if the world economy did not collapse before 2015, which of course it did not. So the prediction now stands without any qualifications.

That predictions was for gasoline to cost in 2015 to be between 12 and 24 dollars per gallon due to the short fall of production (about 4% annually) relative to demand. Furthermore the shortfall would continue so in 2016 gasoline would cost between 24 and 48 dollars per gallon.

I suspect your current prediction of average oil price in 2016 will be above 66 dollars/ brl will be wrong too, but not by such a huge margin.
We will wait and see; but I don't think you will break your near perfect record of being wrong on all non-vague predictions.

Do you plan to post the average oil price each month from 1 January 2016? If not I trust someone will but next post shows how easy it is to get that data.

 

[Billy T]

Actually one can get a running average for oil prices easily, via Google and what experts think that the 2016 averge will be:

The survey of 30 economists and analysts forecast benchmark Brent crude LCOc1 will average $40.10 a barrel, down $2.40 from last month's poll. Brent crude, which averaged about $54 a barrel in 2015, has averaged $32.57 so far this year.
This is the ninth successive monthly Reuters poll in which analysts have lowered their price forecasts.

To get that Reuter's survey quote, all I did was google with: "What has been the average price of oil thus far in 2016?"

If for four months the average price has been $32.57 then to get to a 66 dollar average, the average price P for the last 8 months (2/3 of the year) is given by:
66 = {32.57 (1/3) + P (2/3)} or 198 = 32.57 + 2P or P = (198-32.57)/2 or P = 82.72 dollars / brl

Thus for the Etp model not to be pure BS the average price of oil during the final 8 months of 2016 must be at least 82.72 dollars /brl !!!
But most of us have known all along that the Ept model is BS and not really based on valid physics.

Physics is mute about prices, which depend upon supply and demand.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why did you suddenly decide to join this conversation, shill?

I just happened to notice you were still purveying your usual brand of nonsense, asshole.

Where do methane hydrates fit into your calculations?

 

[Futilitist]

No, now he's saying that the oil price will continue to go down , signalling the end of civilisation as we know it. Except that it will also go up, signalling the end of civilisation as we know it. Do try to keep up. Or down.

I have been consistently saying the same thing since the beginning of this thread. There is no confusion except in your mind.

Yes, and always remember - and this is very important - that cheap oil is unaffordable because it contains less energy than expensive oil...which is also unaffordable!

What happened to the ROFL emoticon? I need it. They're censoring me! This is is total BS! This forum is a sham! I quit!

Welcome back, Russ. Another high quality post, there.

So, why do you think that civilization is impervious to collapse?

---and---

When do you think the price of oil will rise to 80 dollars a barrel?

Finally a well defined, not vague, prediction.

It is the same prediction that I have been making since the beginning of this thread, and you know that.

Thus for the Etp model not to be pure BS the average price of oil during the final 8 months of 2016 must be at least 82.72 dollars /brl !!!

That is exactly the opposite of what I just said, Billy T:

"And by the way, the Etp model predicts that the yearly average price of oil will not exceed 66 dollars a barrel this year."
~Futilitist

Learn to read.*
(*I am just saying that. I know you are misinterpreting me on purpose just to create confusion. I think the readers can figure that out, too.)

I just happened to notice you were still purveying your usual brand of nonsense, asshole.

Calling me an asshole is completely out of line in a serious science discussion, and it is definitely against the rules of this forum, John. Remember what happened last time?

Where do methane hydrates fit into your calculations?

I think the Japanese are running a working experiment, but methane hydrates are currently not a power source on any kind of significant industrial scale. So methane hydrates are not relevant to this discussion.

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

None of your childish comments rise to the level of a serious attempt to invalidate the Etp model. If this is really the best you guys can come up with, then I submit that the Etp model has been validated. Thank you.



---Futilitist

 

[Ophiolite]

Calling me an asshole is completely out of line in a serious science discussion, and it is definitely against the rules of this forum, John. Remember what happened last time.

And you think that calling me a shill is acceptable behaviour? I'll happily trade insult with insult. (Especially since I can prove I am not a shill and that you are an asshole.)

And please desist with veiled threats based on faulty memories.

 

[Futilitist]

And you think that calling me a shill is acceptable behaviour? I'll happily trade insult with insult. (Especially since I can prove I am not a shill and that you are an asshole.)

1. Please provide proof that you are not a shill
2. Please stop calling me an asshole or I will report you like I did last time.

And please desist with veiled threats based on faulty memories.

I am not the one with the memory issues, John.



---Futilitist

 

[Ophiolite]

1. Please provide proof that you are not a shill
2. Please stop calling me an asshole or I will report you like I did last time.

I am not the one with the memory issues, John.

---Futilitist

Your threat in the prior post has been reported. Your behaviour in this thread, this forum and other forums are adequate evidence to demonstrate that you are an asshole. I rest my case. And so asshole, please quit the threats and - ideally - quit the threads.

I'm done with you for the moment.

 

[Futilitist]

Your threat in the prior post has been reported. Your behaviour in this thread, this forum and other forums are adequate evidence to demonstrate that you are an asshole. I rest my case. And so asshole, please quit the threats and - ideally - quit the threads.

I'm done with you for the moment.

Good.

Since you claim to have filled a false report against me, I felt it was necessary to report you for repeatedly calling me an asshole. This is not the first time you have disrupted my one of my threads by repeatedly calling me an asshole. Here is the report I just made:

Sorry to bother you but Ophiolite has just called me an asshole in three consecutive posts. I asked him nicely to stop. Now he claims to have reported me. So I feel it is necessary to report him, just in case his report against me causes some confusion. He has disrupted my threads in the past (and called me an asshole). The last time I reported his behavior, he was banned temporarily as a punishment. Please review the last 3 pages to confirm that Ophiolite is trolling my thread. Thank you.

I apologize to the readers for the behavior of Ophiolite. Hopefully he will stay away for longer than a moment.

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

And now back to the thread.

Does anyone have any serious comments about the Etp model or it's far reaching implications?



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

(Especially since I can prove I am not a shill and that you are an asshole.)

No, no, science works best on falsifiability. You may demonstrate your hypothesis is consistent with the evidence, but only Futi can demonstrate he's not an asshole. So far, no falsification.

 

[Futilitist]

No, no, science works best on falsifiability. You may demonstrate your hypothesis is consistent with the evidence, but only Futi can demonstrate he's not an asshole. So far, no falsification.

I do hope you are not calling me an asshole, Russ. It's against the rule, you know.

It is time for you to provide some falsification. Prove you are not dodging my questions by finally answering them:

So, why do you think that civilization is impervious to collapse?

---and---

When do you think the price of oil will rise to 80 dollars a barrel?

Thanks.



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

Prove you are not dodging my questions by finally answering them:

So, why do you think that civilization is impervious to collapse?

We already discussed that in plenty of detail.

When do you think the price of oil will rise to 80 dollars a barrel?

I don't know. The OPEC stomach is stronger than I expected. It could be another year or two or 5.

Here's a good one from the beginning of the thread:

I seriously doubt any of us will be posting here a year from now.

Aug 24, 2015.

So shall we stick a fork in that one, or do you want to reboot your 'civil unrest by summer' one from 2014 to help us get there in time?

 

[Futilitist]

We already discussed that in plenty of detail.

Yes. The only detail missing was an actual answer to the question.

I don't know. The OPEC stomach is stronger than I expected. It could be another year or two or 5.

What will happen to the frackers? (hint: bankruptcy)

If the price of oil stays under 80 dollars a barrel for 5 years, doesn't that mean that the "fracking miracle" is over? Where will new oil production come from if the only oil available is too expensive to produce? Without the oil from fracking, total world oil production will fall, and we will be past the all liquids peak, and on the downslope of permanent oil depletion. Surprise, peak oil theory was right after all!



---Futilitist

 

[krash661]

but the Etp model is *WAY* better than a wild assed guess.

except it has done nothing but predict a range-- which oddly enough is a " wild assed guess "-- again (shakes head) comical.

which is a second law statement.

-- my god-- what does this even mean?

bad news for fracking since the break even price for most fracking plays is around 80 dollars a barrel!

there are so many questions to ask in order to find the accuracy of your claim--for instance, show at least a figure of this being true and also, is this for every company within the industry, clarify your use of the word most-- there needs to be more specifics for confirmation of your claim.

until oil is no longer produced on any industrial scale anywhere on the earth.

hmm--very odd--since depletion of an necessity causes prices to rise, not level out.

According to the Etp model that will be around 2021, less than 5 years from now.

except explorers have the opposite in their reports.
i would also suggesting up-dating your research--since it is out of date and all.

 

[Ophiolite]

@ Futilist
Statement: the breakeven cost for fracking is probably much closer to $60/barrel than $80/barrel.

Serious Questions:
1. You still haven't addressed the methane hydrates. Why?
2. What do you think the average fracking lifting cost is? You do know what the lifting cost is, don't you?

 

[Futilitist]

-- my god-- what does this even mean?

The Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes is a second law statement. That means it is an expression of the second law of thermodynamics. That means it is true.

there are so many questions to ask in order to find the accuracy of your claim--for instance, show at least a figure of this being true and also, is this for every company within the industry, clarify your use of the word most-- there needs to be more specifics for confirmation of your claim.

billvon posted this on page 6 of this thread:

Since you guys all work together, I figured you would except billvon's estimate for the break even oil price for most fracking. I accepted it. No one has ever contested it before now.

hmm--very odd--since depletion of an necessity causes prices to rise, not level out.

Correct. Prices rise until the point that they can no longer be afforded.

except explorers have the opposite in their reports.
i would also suggesting up-dating your research--since it is out of date and all.

You are just making shit up.

@ Futilist
Statement: the breakeven cost for fracking is probably much closer to $60/barrel than $80/barrel.

You need to discuss that with billvon, then.

But if you prefer 60 instead of 80:

When do you expect the price of oil to rise to 60 dollars a barrel?

1. You still haven't addressed the methane hydrates. Why?

Please pay closer attention. I did answer your methane hydrate question in post #1468, just up the page. Here is what I said:

"I think the Japanese are running a working experiment, but methane hydrates are currently not a power source on any kind of significant industrial scale. So methane hydrates are not relevant to this discussion."

2. What do you think the average fracking lifting cost is? You do know what the lifting cost is, don't you?

I don't happen to know what the average fracking lifting cost currently is, but I certainly do know what lifting cost means. What is your point?



---Futilitist

 

[krash661]

That means it is true.

comically-hilarious--according to whom though?

You are just making shit up.

besides this being completely untrue, how would you even know? again--up-date your research.