The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[Russ_Watters]

Hi Russ, thank you for clearing that up. I broadly agree with your points. I think as recently as four years ago I was posting the view that Peak Oil may already have been reached, or might not be hit till the 2030s - too many variables to be decide which. And fracking transformed the picture as you say. Other factors could have a comparable impact, pushing the peak further out again.

I'm not sure what "other things" you are referring to, but the "other things" I see are global warming and people's responses to it, along with the realization of just how much OPEC was manipulating prices. The landscape of 2005 implied a sharp peak, whereas today's landscape implies a flattened, widened peak.

Concerted efforts at carbon reducton plus the recognition that fracking production reacts to demand and prices more clearly than conventional oil make the resurrection of Peak Oil and Peak Oil Apocalysm in a few decades less certain: oil production may peak, while regular people may not notice or care.

 

[exchemist]

Ooh... what if the only reason Big Oil (tm) has lowered its prices is to encourage more people to stick with Big Oil (tm) and not move onto more environmentally friendly resources? They're operating at a loss for now because they're playing a The Long Game, eventually when Big Oil (tm) wins the war on the environment, they'll jack their prices right back up again because they'll once again have the monopoly.

In other news, do you like my hat? Isn't it shiny!

I'm not sure what "other things" you are referring to, but the "other things" I see are global warming and people's responses to it, along with the realization of just how much OPEC was manipulating prices. The landscape of 2005 implied a sharp peak, whereas today's landscape implies a flattened, widened peak.

Concerted efforts at carbon reducton plus the recognition that fracking production reacts to demand and prices more clearly than conventional oil make the resurrection of Peak Oil and Peak Oil Apocalysm in a few decades less certain: oil production may peak, while regular people may not notice or care.

Indeed. Are we past Peak Coal, I wonder? (I hope we are, for reasons of climate change.) But nobody notices or seems to think that threatens civilisation. I suspect Peal Oil, and then Peak Gas, may pass eventually without us noticing.

Do you know, I read yesterday that in the UK last year 25% of the electricity was generated from renewables? 25% already! And that we have apparently, 10,000 charging points for electric cars on our road system! Seems to me the diversification of energy is well under way, in a low profile way.

And then there is Peak Beard of course.....which I saw in an article about trendy East End hipsters....

 

[Russ_Watters]

And then there is Peak Beard of course.....which I saw in an article about trendy East End hipsters....

Oh, dear God, I hope so!

 

[krash661]

No. Not at all. Though sometimes, being government agencies, or being dependent on the government, they do editorialize a bit for political reasons. But as far as counting barrels, they basically do the best they can.


You appear to be vastly over simplifying and mischaracterizing the whole peak oil argument. And I have never ignored the reality of an actual oversupply. I have been talking about the glut since the beginning of the thread.


I get out quite a bit, actually.


Of course not. I have been talking about it non stop. Have you actually read any of this thread?


Of course not. But that generalized trend is not anywhere near enough to overcome the decline in net energy resulting from the rising entropy within the oil production process. It is a certainty guaranteed by the second law of thermodynamics. That is what the Etp model is all about.


Yes, oil prices dropped to a 5 year low. That part is obviously a fact. And the price drop was due to an oversupply. But the reasons for the oversupply are highly debated. They are opinion. For example, many say it is because of falling demand. You would probably disagree with them. That is why you really disagree with me. I agree it is because of falling demand, but I say that is not the whole story. The underlying reason for the falling demand is actually the second law of thermodynamics!


It sounds like you are playing word games.


Falling reliance is a background trend. You are trying to overemphasize it's importance. That is your opinion. 'Helped contribute to' is not the same thing as 'caused'.


There you go again, conflating facts with opinions. Yes you can support those opinions with actual evidence. But that does not change those opinions into facts.


What a weird thing to say. There is no general trend amongst oil producers to slow down. US frackers have started to slow down because the price of oil is too low and they cannot afford to keep the wells operating. This is happening to oil from the tar sands as well. It makes sense that these high energy cost sources of oil would be shut in first. It is predicted by the Etp model. And it is exactly what is happening.


I did not say the oil was running out. But the cheap oil is definitely running out. There will always be lots of oil in the earth's crust. But after 2021, civilization (or whatever is left of it) will no longer be able to afford to produce oil on an industrial scale. That is because the energy return on energy invested will be less than 1:1. Oil will no longer be a source of energy for the economy.


Demand from China is dropping. But the rest is your opinion.


That is a lie. I have supported my opinions very well. There are 80 pages that show that I have gone to great effort to offer actual proof for everything I have said.


You are very ill informed about what goes on at peakoil.com. Most posters there are alternative energy advocates. And calling it outdated is highly prejudicial. It is also circular reasoning. You are assuming the conclusion that peak oil is a dated concept.


Current events are mirroring my predictions every day now. That is what you seem to be afraid of. It undercuts the 'everything is awesome' pro business narrative you guys are pushing.


Prove it.


That is not surprising considering the fraudulent nature of this forum.


You are wrong. I made my prediction that the stock markets were going to start to crash about a week before the August plunge. When I made the prediction, I called it my Official Futilitist Prediction, to avoid any confusion. (Unfortunately, it did not work, though. People here keep trying to take everything I say out of context, and they treat every word I say as a prediction! That is just an intentionally vexatious word game, also known as trolling.)


I am not stockpiling anything.


Straw man. I never said it existed solely to screw me over. Those are your words, not mine. But this forum is an obvious fraud. And I can prove it, too. Perhaps I will open another thread if I have the time.


Ad hominem attack. Nice. That is a very immoderate comment coming from a moderator of a supposed science forum.



---Futilitist

i find funny that you are fussing over something that is usual. you simply do not acknowledge that everything you are arguing about in this post is simply a usual cycle that occurs within every year at this time, during summer, and then in fall. remember your pathetic nonsense from yesterday?--look at the front month of oil now.
(shakes head)

and in reality, at this time, during campaign seasons-- the indices and futures usually move lower when the choice for presidents is becoming clear. again-- a usual cycle during the campaigns.
(shakes head)-- carry on.

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you know, I read yesterday that in the UK last year 25% of the electricity was generated from renewables? 25% already!
.

The figure for Scotland was 57.7%. You chaps down south have some work to do to catch up.

 

[krash661]

My point is that the price of oil is determined by the laws of thermodynamics, not oil companies.

yes, of course--which oddly enough is a range from 11 to 66 dollars. a six handle range? (shakes head)-- comical.

 

[exchemist]

The figure for Scotland was 57.7%. You chaps down south have some work to do to catch up.

Well it would be: cold and windy, with hardly any people.

 

[krash661]

I'll translate for you: "shortfall" = "glut". Also, if you don't have a Futie History book handy, in the 1970s oil shock, oil prices crashed to unprecedented lows because of too much supply.

as to fut's " shortfall comment--something interesting-- http://www.forbes.com/sites/judecle...ch-oil-does-the-world-have-left/#fe7b0c85dc5e :
" JUN 25, 2015 @ 09:05 AM //59,574 VIEWS
How Much Oil Does the World Have Left?

The short answer to the question posed is….a lot. Or at least way more than many groups and people out there want you to believe. Today, the world is swimming in oil, and prices have been sliced in half over the past year. “Peak oil” theory for production is predicated on the work of legendary geologist M.King Hubbert, who in 1956 employed his now famous/infamous “Hubbert curve” to predict U.S. petroleum production would peak in 1970. For many years he appeared to be correct, but the “shale revolution” is on the verge of proving him premature.

False pessimistic predictions regarding future oil production dates back to the beginning of the modern oil era in the mid-1850s, and can quickly ensnare the best experts with the most resources available. To illustrate, the Joint Operating Environment 2010 report (“the JOE report”) from the U.S. Joint Forces Command, the leader for the transformation of U.S. military capabilities from 1999-2011, projected a 10 million b/d global supply shortfall for 2015. Now, just five years later, we have a 2-3 million b/d surplus. " [...] " The main reason for “being so wrong” about oil’s future availability is the over-reliance on analytical techniques that fail to appreciate petroleum as an economic commodity powered by the constant advance of technology. "

 

[krash661]

We have not crossed into permanent depletion yet. As you just learned, that means a state of declining production that is irreversible. (Irreversibility is a physics term, remember?) We will cross the all liquids peak and into permanent depletion when the frackers finally go bust. Basically right about now.

so when you clearly stated this : " What I said was correct. After 2015 we will very likely cross over into permanent depletion. Oil depletion is the decline in oil production of a well, oil field, or geographic area. "-- you were/are wrong then?

Quit putting words in my mouth![...] I predict you will not stop playing word games.[...] Why are you so dishonest?[...] I just got finished saying you keep inventing predictions that I supposedly made a long time ago.And you just keep on doing it.

so whom is the one that put your own words above, in your mouth? and also if it was not a prediction, then what are you correct about?

 

[krash661]

Now that fracking is unaffordable, what other factors do you think might have a comparable impact?

i can simply subsidize the cost with other forms of revenue made. (shrugs)

 

[krash661]

It is "cheap" gas made out of expensive, debt financed oil, Russ. The oil companies can't stay in business very long if they keep selling the oil for less than it costs to produce.

you need to comprehend up-stream and down-stream.

 

[Ophiolite]

you need to comprehend up-stream and down-stream.

And, in some vocabularies, mid-stream. Futilitist understand almost nothing of significance about the industry.

 

[origin]

I did not say the oil was running out. But the cheap oil is definitely running out. There will always be lots of oil in the earth's crust. But after 2021, civilization (or whatever is left of it) will no longer be able to afford to produce oil on an industrial scale.

I will assume this line [ But after 2021, civilization (or whatever is left of it)] is a joke. As for the rest of the comment - of course they will be able to afford to produce oil because they will raise the selling price oil based products!

That is because the energy return on energy invested will be less than 1:1.

Sure it would be, if the oil companies didn't raise their prices, but they will because they are not insanely stupid.

Oil will no longer be a source of energy for the economy.

Sure it will. We are starting to move to other sources of energy and as the price of oil rises due to the easy oil being a thing of the past, we will move more and more to alternative energy. There will still be millions and millions of cars that are running on gas.

 

[krash661]

As for the rest of the comment - of course they will be able to afford to produce oil because they will raise the selling price oil based products!

yes-yes--because of this thing that has been occurring for centuries now-- inflation.
again, i am still attempting to figure out what this etp predicts.

 

[krash661]

as for the jun16' oil contract, i just entered at 43.51 on the buy side for a weekly trade or such--to around that 50/51 area as a target--this may not move up(it may even tick down lower where i will add more if so) until next week, when the buyers will attempt to push it to that 50 area. usually their moves occur on mondays into tuesdays, then it will slow-up on wednesday(as everyone awaits for more of an indication). on fridays, either morning or around the close, they will finish their attempts into that following week.

 

[krash661]

i have a buy side working order in for more contracts at 42.48-- there should be a small fight at 42.50 down to 42 area that can send this to 41 where a strong buy side level is at and where i will add more also.. if not then the small fight at 42-42.50 area will show support and buyers will come in from there--whether that happens today is the question, but i doubt it-- probably small ticks tomorrow and then moves on friday morning. but this last part is just a thought.
also it is " lunch time " for wallstreet so there is a chance some sort of move will occur after the wallstreet lunch session is over, which should be here in about a half hour.

 

[origin]

yes-yes--because of this thing that has been occurring for centuries now-- inflation.
again, i am still attempting to figure out what this etp predicts.

My guess is this clown Bill Hill realized that when you first hit oil the high pressure of the reservoir forces the oil out of the ground and over time as the oil pressure subsides more energy must be used to pump the oil out. He took this obvious concept and then combined it with his complete lack of understanding of entropy, energy, economics and logic and cobbled together his meaningless and moronic EPT trainwreck. Apparently, the gullible actually spend cash to find out about this garbage. Come to think of it he is probably just a huckster separating money from the gullible.

 

[exchemist]

My guess is this clown Bill Hill realized that when you first hit oil the high pressure of the reservoir forces the oil out of the ground and over time as the oil pressure subsides more energy must be used to pump the oil out. He took this obvious concept and then combined it with his complete lack of understanding of entropy, energy, economics and logic and cobbled together his meaningless and moronic EPT trainwreck. Apparently, the gullible actually spend cash to find out about this garbage. Come to think of it he is probably just a huckster separating money from the gullible.

I've read his paper. Sections of it look like something out of a reservoir engineer's handbook and I would not be surprised if the formulae given for entropy increase in a reservoir as extraction proceeds make sense. But I'm not a reservoir engineer or indeed a chemical engineer, so I can't say. What however does not make sense is to extrapolate from the thermodynamics of one well to the making of thermodynamic inferences about all the wells in the world, which are a mixture of those near exhaustion, those in mid-life, those that have just been tapped and those yet to be drilled, when there is no database of the thermodynamic state of each one to allow averages to be made. This is imbecility no.1.

Imbecility no.2 is the utter economic illiteracy of Hill, in asserting that the oil price is linked in any analytical way to this pseudo-thermodynamic state of the world's oil wells that he has dreamed up.

Imbecility no.3 is assuming that all the supply and demand factors, both market-led and geopolitical, have no impact....because, you see, it's the thermodynamics, stupid.

It is, as you say, a crock of shit.

Actually I see a parallel between this and the pseudo-mathematical constructions of Bill Dembski, on the subject of "complex specified information", i.e. his attempt to provide an objective definition of the "design" in nature that ID creationists claim. In both cases, I suspect, the idea is to bamboozle the public with something too complicated and dull to pick apart, while giving the faithful, who are too ignorant to understand it, something impressive-looking to quote. This fits the use Fute has made of it in this thread - he clearly doesn't understand it at all.

One further interesting thing: I note Fute periodically rants about "right-wing" conspiracy. From briefly researching this topic, it looks to me as if these pseudoscience ideas are the pet of a number of what you might call "eco-Marxists". For example there is a book I came across called "The Entropy of Capitalism" by one Robert Biel, which seem to have some of these notions in it:-

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=syY8ccfoxQgC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=oil reservoir entropy&source=bl&ots=rax1nJztii&sig=TCyOlXTXdPQ4k928AL1NznTW9cU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAvrbOnMHMAhXMJcAKHRdgCSkQ6AEINzAF#v=onepage&q=oil reservoir entropy&f=false

The only reviews I can find of this turgid tome are from eco-Marxist websites. Here's an example: " “Overall, The Entropy of Capitalism constitutes an important contribution to the debate on the (un)sustainability of capitalism, and offers an interesting complement to similar theories, like Gunther Teubner’s idea of ‘systemic addiction.’ The book is very thoroughly researched, and made even more interesting by the author’s own involvement in transition initiatives (like Transition Town Brixton) and the urban agriculture movement.”
—Luigi Russi, The Commons Sense"

The fundamental doctrine of these people is that capitalism is unsustainable, and this sort of stuff is all grist to the mill, whether it makes sense or not. Trying to co-opt the laws of thermodynamics to their cause is certainly audacious and would be powerful if it were taken seriously - but it won't be because you cannot make such a link. This, I now strongly suspect, is Fute's religion.

 

[Ophiolite]

Just a heads up: driving to work this morning I heard an interview on the BBC with a gentleman from Chatham House, the think tank, relating to a report on the oil and gas industry in which he describes the future of the giants such as ExxonMobil, BP, Total, etc as nasty, brutish and short. I can well imagine Futilitist jumping all over this as evidence for his view. However, the guy's thesis is that the present business model of these companies is flawed. In his own words "rather like Doctor Who they will just change their appearance and continue in a different form".

 

[exchemist]

Just a heads up: driving to work this morning I heard an interview on the BBC with a gentleman from Chatham House, the think tank, relating to a report on the oil and gas industry in which he describes the future of the giants such as ExxonMobil, BP, Total, etc as nasty, brutish and short. I can well imagine Futilitist jumping all over this as evidence for his view. However, the guy's thesis is that the present business model of these companies is flawed. In his own words "rather like Doctor Who they will just change their appearance and continue in a different form".

This sounds interesting, but I can't find it on the BBC website. Was this R4's "Today", by any chance, and if so at what time? (If it is, I can replay the interview on iPlayer).

I'd be interested to hear what he thinks is wrong with the "business model" and how he thinks it will evolve. I have my pension to think of!