The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[Ophiolite]

I think it was Radio Scotland. (I switch between 5-Live, Radio 4 and Radio Scotland). It would have been between 7:25 and 8:15.

The failings of the business model were, as I recall:
1) All companies having the same outlook and therefore all doing the same thing
2) Over commitment in Downstream activities.
3) Loss of expertise through handing over a great deal of decision making to contractors.
4) Overly focused on increasing reserve balance.

I looked at the Chatham House site, hoping to find further material, but so far nothing.

 

[exchemist]

I think it was Radio Scotland. (I switch between 5-Live, Radio 4 and Radio Scotland). It would have been between 7:25 and 8:15.

The failings of the business model were, as I recall:
1) All companies having the same outlook and therefore all doing the same thing
2) Over commitment in Downstream activities.
3) Loss of expertise through handing over a great deal of decision making to contractors.
4) Overly focused on increasing reserve balance.

I looked at the Chatham House site, hoping to find further material, but so far nothing.

Hm, sounds a bit odd. I'd have thought presence in downstream was a good thing when the crude price is depressed.

But things are changing in the industry. My ex-employer, Shell, has made a big move to gas. They even now make a lot of the lubricants from gas synthetically, from Qatar. The rationale is climate change of course, plus using the company's existing strong position in LNG. I don't think this strategy is the same as that of the other majors, but I could be wrong.

I'd be curious to know who this person was.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hm, sounds a bit odd. I'd have thought presence in downstream was a good thing when the crude price is depressed.

Perhaps part of the argument was that the retail sector for petrol generates small profit margins. This was not an aspect of his brief interview that he developed.

But things are changing in the industry. My ex-employer, Shell, has made a big move to gas. They even now make a lot of the lubricants from gas synthetically, from Qatar. The rationale is climate change of course, plus using the company's existing strong position in LNG. I don't think this strategy is the same as that of the other majors, but I could be wrong.

Certainly on the drilling side the concept I learned was that there are three ways to drill a well: the right way, the wrong way and the Shell way.

 

[exchemist]

Perhaps part of the argument was that the retail sector for petrol generates small profit margins. This was not an aspect of his brief interview that he developed.


Certainly on the drilling side the concept I learned was that there are three ways to drill a well: the right way, the wrong way and the Shell way.

I was in the Downstream so I can't comment...except that it does not surprise me! There were Shell standards for just about everything. I recall a huge argument about whether or not we could use cast iron pump bodies on the oil plant. Refinery standards said cast steel, but this was thought OTT by Marketing, who in case ran the plant, but on a refinery site. Cue much waving of books and accusations of heresy from sundry design engineers. Ah well, it is all under the new Thames container port now, in any case....

 

[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.

for my trade-- i just added at stop at 44.50-- i am locking in a dollar's profit or every contract. now no matter what happens i will make at least a dollar profit per contract. i will also hold this trade as long as i can until it hits my stop(which i will continue to move up as the price does) or hits my target around that 51 area. that is 10.00 dollars per tick on this contract. at this moment i have 20 contracts.



What is a 'Tick'
A tick is the minimum upward or downward movement in the price of a security. The term "tick" also refers to the change in the price of a security from trade to trade. Since 2001, with the advent of decimalization, the minimum tick size for stocks trading above $1 is 1 cent.



Read more: Tick Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tick.asp#ixzz47nH64In7
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

 

[Futilitist]

I've read his paper.

When did you read the Etp book? This is the first time in the 83 pages of this thread that you have ever claimed to have actually read it! You have complained a lot about not having a copy. Now you just casually claim to have to have read it. I don't believe you.

Did you just purchase the book? If so, why didn't you mention that you were going to do that?

Just to be sure you are not lying, can you please copy and paste the first sentence you find at the top of page 45?

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.

That is because the Etp model is based on The Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes, which is a second law statement. Since the second law of thermodynamics is inviolate throughout the universe, and the Etp model's Equation #7 is directly derived from it, we can be pretty sure that the output of the Etp model is correct. You need to show why the methodology used in the Etp model is supposedly wrong in order to falsify it. You obviously cannot do that.

But I'm not a reservoir engineer or indeed a chemical engineer, so I can't say.

Exactly. So you have no idea whether the Etp model is correct or not. You are simply not qualified to make that judgement.

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.

But since you are not a reservoir engineer or indeed a chemical engineer, you really don't know what the hell you are talking about, do you?

If the Etp methodology could be used to correctly evaluate a single well, as you just conceded, why couldn't it be used to evaluate the whole oil field composed of many wells? And if a whole field could be sensibly averaged like that, why couldn't an oil producing region be evaluated the same way? And if an oil producing region could be evaluated that way, why not the entire world's oil production system? It makes sense very good sense to evaluate the average state of entropy of all of the world's oil wells if you want to know how much total energy was used in the production of oil world wide.

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.

The Etp model is an exergy analysis of the total energy used world wide in the production, refining, and distribution of oil. It has nothing to do with economics.

The world economy is thermodynamic heat engine. The laws of thermodynamics must apply to it.

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.

The Etp model does not claim that there is no impact from geopolitical factors. That is why the model excludes the oil embargo years from the 1970s. Back then, the OPEC cartel had enough leverage to distort the oil price significantly. They no longer have that kind of leverage.

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

That is what you say.

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.

Comparing the Etp model to creationism is ridiculous. If that is your best argument, you lose.

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".

The only people who use the term "eco-Marxists" are right wing nut jobs.

It is no accident that the term is being used here. This forum's sole purpose is to do right wing propaganda, while pretending to be talking about science.

This so called forum is very heavily populated with unpleasant right wing nut jobs who preach the religion of capitalism.

The fundamental doctrine of these people is that capitalism is unsustainable.

Are you claiming that capitalism is sustainable? Only a right wing nut job would make such a claim.

Modern industrial civilization is unsustainable, no matter what type of economic system it employs. Generally speaking, since it is inherently unsustainable, it is logical to assume that civilization will eventually fail. A closer inspection reveals that it is likely to fail soon.

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.

The economy is a thermodynamic heat engine that runs on oil.



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

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".

You are right to think that I would jump all over this as evidence for my view. Thanks for beating me to the punch.

I said that the major oil companies were in for very hard times. This BBC report confirms that I was correct.

The business models of the major oil companies are flawed because the price of oil is no longer high enough to pay for it's continued production. This is because of the second law of thermodynamics. Any business model that attempts to defy the second law of thermodynamics is doomed to fail.



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

When did you read the Etp book? This is the first time in the 83 pages of this thread that you have ever claimed to have actually read it! You have complained a lot about not having a copy. Now you just casually claim to have to have read it. I don't believe you.

Did you just purchase the book? If so, why didn't you mention that you were going to do that?

Just to be sure you are not lying, can you please copy and paste the first sentence you find at the top of page 45?


That is because the Etp model is based on The Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes, which is a second law statement. Since the second law of thermodynamics is inviolate throughout the universe, and the Etp model's Equation #7 is directly derived from it, we can be pretty sure that the output of the Etp model is correct. You need to show why the methodology used in the Etp model is supposedly wrong in order to falsify it. You obviously cannot do that.


Exactly. So you have no idea whether the Etp model is correct or not. You are simply not qualified to make that judgement.


But since you are not a reservoir engineer or indeed a chemical engineer, you really don't know what the hell you are talking about, do you?

If the Etp methodology could be used to correctly evaluate a single well, as you just conceded, why couldn't it be used to evaluate the whole oil field composed of many wells? And if a whole field could be sensibly averaged like that, why couldn't an oil producing region be evaluated the same way? And if an oil producing region could be evaluated that way, why not the entire world's oil production system? It makes sense very good sense to evaluate the average state of entropy of all of the world's oil wells if you want to know how much total energy was used in the production of oil world wide.


The Etp model is an exergy analysis of the total energy used world wide in the production, refining, and distribution of oil. It has nothing to do with economics.

The world economy is thermodynamic heat engine. The laws of thermodynamics must apply to it.


The Etp model does not claim that there is no impact from geopolitical factors. That is why the model excludes the oil embargo years from the 1970s. Back then, the OPEC cartel had enough leverage to distort the oil price significantly. They no longer have that kind of leverage.


That is what you say.


Comparing the Etp model to creationism is ridiculous. If that is your best argument, you lose.


The only people who use the term "eco-Marxists" are right wing nut jobs.

It is no accident that the term is being used here. This forum's sole purpose is to do right wing propaganda, while pretending to be talking about science.

This so called forum is very heavily populated with unpleasant right wing nut jobs who preach the religion of capitalism.


Are you claiming that capitalism is sustainable? Only a right wing nut job would make such a claim.

Modern industrial civilization is unsustainable, no matter what type of economic system it employs. Generally speaking, since it is inherently unsustainable, it is logical to assume that civilization will eventually fail. A closer inspection reveals that it is likely to fail soon.


The economy is a thermodynamic heat engine that runs on oil.



---Futilitist

BINGO!

 

[Futilitist]

BINGO!

I just asked you to copy and paste the first sentence from page 45 of the Etp book. The first sentence on that page is not "BINGO!":

"The inflection point of the CDF for the normal logistic distribution (λ = 0.5) is 2001, for the skewed logistic 2019 (λ = 0.2)."

Yep, clearly not "BINGO!" In fact, I couldn't find the word BINGO anywhere in the whole book!

So you freely admit to lying and attempting to post false and misleading information. Thank you for that prompt and sincere confession, but you should be banned for this serious offense. Since the "moderator" called Bells is supposedly paying close attention to this thread, we will now wait to see if that happens, as it properly should. I am not holding my breath.



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

I just asked you to copy and paste the first sentence from page 45 of the Etp book. The first sentence on that page is not "BINGO!":

"The inflection point of the CDF for the normal logistic distribution (λ = 0.5) is 2001, for the skewed logistic 2019 (λ = 0.2)."

Yep, clearly not "BINGO!" In fact, I couldn't find the word BINGO anywhere in the whole book!

So you freely admit to lying and attempting to post false and misleading information. Thank you for that prompt and sincere confession, but you should be banned for this serious offense. Since the "moderator" called Bells is supposedly paying close attention to this thread, we will now wait to see if that happens, as it properly should. I am not holding my breath.



---Futilitist

"Paper" =/= "book", you hysterical pillock.

 

[Futilitist]

"Paper" =/= "book", you hysterical pillock.

origin said:
"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."

echemist said:
"I've read his paper. Sections of it look like..."

I noticed you called it a paper instead of a book. I thought that mistake was another indication that you were lying about having any familiarity with it.

The point is that you attempted to lie to all the readers of this forum. Shame on you.

And the other point is that the "moderator" called Bells should take some action against you for this blatant breach of site guidelines. And she would, if this were a proper science discussion forum. But it obviously isn't. She threw my thread into the pseudoscience section for no good reason. And she will likely let you get away with what you just did. That is how I know this site is just an astroturfing sham. The basic unfairness on display here is grotesque. This so called science discussion forum is just a cover for a shadowy (and highly incompetent) right-wing group that does boring, pro-business, feel-good, "Everything is Awesome" bullshit propaganda under the guise of science. What a transparent scam!



---Futilitist

 

[Billy T]

... The business models of the major oil companies are flawed because the price of oil is no longer high enough to pay for it's continued production. This is because of the second law of thermodynamics. ... ---Futilitist

That might be some law of economics, if we could assume that goverments do not act to make some things more profitable or more expensive than a "free market" economy would make them; but the second law does not even mention price. Extending the 2nd law to speak of price is your "creative non-sense."

The second laws speaks of entropy and to decrese it requires energy (which is obtained by greater entropy increase elsewhere.) If the system is just oil, initially in the ground, very dispersed, when that oil is in a storage tank, the entropy of it is greatly decreassed.

To apply the second law, you need first to define the system you will speak of.

... Bells threw my thread into the pseudoscience section for no good reason.

No she did that as you grossly misrepresent what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is concerned with. You are "preaching" pseudoscience.

Finally this thread and others you started based on your false understanding of the 2nd law is where it belongs!

 

[Futilitist]

No she did that as you grossly misrepresent what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is concerned with. You are "preaching" pseudoscience.

Finally this thread and others you started based on your false understanding of the 2nd law is where it belongs!

Whatever. It is not surprising that you would say something like that.

That might be some law of economics, if we could assume that goverments do not act to make some things more profitable or more expensive than a "free market" economy would make them; but the second law does not even mention price. Extending the 2nd law to speak of price is your "creative non-sense."

Physics trumps economics every time, BillyT.

The economy is a thermodynamic heat engine. The second law of thermodynamics obviously applies.

You claim to be a physicist but all you ever talk about is economics.

The second laws speaks of enropy and to decrese it requires energy (which is obtarined by greater entropy increase elsewhere. If the system is just oil, initially in the ground, very dispersed, when that oil is in a stroage tank, the entropy of it is greatly decreassed.

To apply the second law, you need first to define the system you will speak of.

The Etp model defines the system it speaks of very thoroughly. That system is the petroleum production system. But we have discussed all of that before. It seems like you are just trying to create a distraction.

What do you think about the fact that exchemist so blatantly lied to everyone? Do you think he should be punished?



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

Exactly. So you have no idea whether the Etp model is correct or not. You are simply not qualified to make that judgement.

What kind of engineer are you, that you are qualified to judge it?

Yeah, I thought not.

 

[Billy T]

.... The Etp model defines the system it speaks of very thoroughly. That system is the petroleum production system. ... ---Futilitist

Which production system? Which type of primary energy source? Do you think physic defines the cost of energy, or is it more releated to supply and demand. Note both can be greatly effected by technologic change. Alumium was many times more costly than gold to produce before the Hall process, and the demand for it was very low.

Again:Physics does not say anthing about prices. So long as you state it does, this thread is exactly where it belongs

 

[Russ_Watters]

Apparently, the gullible actually spend cash to find out about this garbage.

Prolific cheerleader True Believers are given the book for free.

 

[Futilitist]

More useless distractions. You act like little children.



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

origin said:
"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."

echemist said:
"I've read his paper. Sections of it look like..."

I noticed you called it a paper instead of a book. I thought that mistake was another indication that you were lying about having any familiarity with it.

The point is that you attempted to lie to all the readers of this forum. Shame on you.

And the other point is that the "moderator" called Bells should take some action against you for this blatant breach of site guidelines. And she would, if this were a proper science discussion forum. But it obviously isn't. She threw my thread into the pseudoscience section for no good reason. And she will likely let you get away with what you just did. That is how I know this site is just an astroturfing sham. The basic unfairness on display here is grotesque. This so called science discussion forum is just a cover for a shadowy (and highly incompetent) right-wing group that does boring, pro-business, feel-good, "Everything is Awesome" bullshit propaganda under the guise of science. What a transparent scam!



---Futilitist

I said I had read Hill's paper and so I have. This one: http://www.thehillsgroup.org/petrohgv2.pdf.

So kindly point out where I am lying, as you claim.

Or, to put it another way, quoting Joss Ackland's character in Lethal Weapon 2: "Whiew is the dickhid naow, eh?"

 

[exchemist]

The economy is a thermodynamic heat engine.
---Futilitist

That is possibly the stupidest remark I have seen so far this year. But on present form it will not retain the title for long.........

......Oops, already knocked for six by the claim that this forum is : "...just a cover for a shadowy (and highly incompetent) right-wing group that does boring, pro-business, feel-good, "Everything is Awesome" bullshit propaganda under the guise of science. What a transparent scam"

A shadowy right-wing group, eh?....... Bells and I are members of the Illuminati. Or the Bilderberg Group. Apparently. What fun!

 

[Futilitist]

That is possibly the stupidest remark I have seen so far this year.

It sounds like you are trying to claim that the economy is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics!

This is supposed to be a science forum.

I said I had read Hill's paper and so I have. This one: http://www.thehillsgroup.org/petrohgv2.pdf.

The mystery deepens. Where did you find that link? It is not supposed to be publically available.

When did you actually read the Etp report?

Why didn't you say something about it before?

If you have a copy of the report, why are you demanding that I post detailed and specific information from it? That isn't very nice.

Why didn't you say you had a copy of the Etp report when I first challenged you? You said "BINGO! " instead. Was that a little inside joke for your co workers? Did you win a bet? Were you saying "gotcha", as in you tricked me into accusing you of lying so you could have an excuse to shut the thread down? Pretty clumsy trick.

A shadowy right-wing group, eh?....... Bells and I are members of the Illuminati. Or the Bilderberg Group. Apparently. What fun!

Ha ha. You wish! You guys are just a cheap astroturfing outfit.



---Futilitist